Indeed - Yahoo will put ads on Tumblr and make a fortune from the page impressions. Other than mindless Yahoo-bashing I can't imagine why this 'example' made the summary.

how Adobe charging more money for their software to Australian customers helps prop up Australia's "socialist wonderland" "welfare state". The price difference is not in government tax or import duties, it just goes into the pocket of Adobe.

I pitched my comment towards differences for the users, as that's what this Slashdot article is querying. The difference to actual development is, as you've quite rightly pointed out, zero - which is at it should be. Your developers have created a launchable product, it's only up to the business to decide if it's an appropriate time to launch the product or not - it's none of the developers concern.

When talking about "the non-agile alternative" I'm afraid I should have specified "the classic waterfall method".

The way I've used agile is not to have multiple iterative launches of a product, but to have multiple iterative points where you *have* a launchable product. The advantage of Agile isn't constantly churning out crumb-like updates to freaked-out users, it's being able to say on any given week "we could launch with X feature set now if we had to, and have Y feature set still to build" rather than the non-agile alternative which is "it doesn't work but we are 30% towards completing it".

This enables you to be able to set a firm launch date and be able to meet it with a working product. You can either chose to launch iterative updates afterwards, or just stick with what you launched and move onto a different project - whatever the business decides.

In reference to the summary: if there is no process, you are doing Agile wrong. If your developers are overwriting each others work, you are using SVN wrong. Neither of these are inherent problems with Agile, you're just being incompetent - and there is no methodology to overcome incompetence.

mod this up

People actually use Yahoo!s products too, otherwise they wouldn't have made $5 billion profit last year, the year before, and the year before that. It's vocal tech communities and business columnists that have their heads in the sand, not Yahoo! or it's users.

Latvarians should realise by now Doom decides what History is allowed to be taught to his citizens.

I don't think you understand that I wasn't talking about "the market", I'm talking about a useful, productive profit-making business. Share prices are irrelevant to anyone except shareholders and business newspaper columnists.

Giving 1 Terabyte (not gigabyte, terabyte) of storage to users (not paid users, all users) is NOT the action of a dying product. The Yahoo! bashing is getting pretty tiresome around here - according to the Wall Street Journal they've made $5 billion profit annually for the last few years - I fail to see how that is unsuccessful. In regards to Tumblr, Flickr is an excellent example of Yahoo! buying a brand and service and not ruining it in the proces.

Healthcare is free if your taxable income is low enough (otherwise you pay the Medicare Levy each tax year unless you have bought Health Insurance).

Education is free for everyone up until University (but you can choose to pay to send your kids to private school).

This is absolutely true, and when it was cancelled in 1989 we had no Sci-Fi again. Which explains why Star Trek TNG's pretty poor first two seasons were so successful in the UK when they went to air 9 months later. It's all there was.

That's fine, but in this case there's a lot to be learned from a new adage: "if your unsupported software does break, you're totally fucked"

and if the VM is running Windows XP with IE6, it'll be just like using their own computer at home.

From the first minutes in Auckland to the last in Anchorage, the English-speaking Internet has to put up with 45 hours of idiots posting lame fake news.

Plus, of course, it hangs around for days afterwards in 'popular' and 'latest' lists until the articles finally bubble under the real news.

I thought you missed it off as it's not a 'real' optical effect, but a nod to the software the BBC used to create basic computer generated effects.

Always wondered why they put it in the gag, probably only BBC staff and some hardcore Doctor Who fans (like myself) would even have been aware of what Quantel was!