It isn't that requirements shouldn't be re-evaluated or should never change... this principle of accepting change in Agile makes perfect sense in the context of "providing a solution that meets the actual need."

The challenge comes in with education of the non-implementers who have been sold on their development teams utilizing this methodology.

My experience with "Agile" (can't say the intended way, just the way it has been bastardized) can be summarized with this anecdote: Business guy comes in and wants to fundamentally change what is being delivered for a project. And, no... the "deadline" for when the project is needed isn't changing. But, that should be ok, right? Because Agile allows for changing requirements even late in development.

Don't get me wrong. Agile vs Waterfall (for some project types) is vastly superior. Delivering incremental, meaningful software frequently can help the business evaluate if what was asked for is on the right track or not. But, in my experience, rarely does the whole team understand the use/application of this methodology. People understand in Waterfall "if I don't get the requirements right, it is my fault" because it has been around for a long time and is widely implemented across many industries.

Even with 10 years, Agile methodology hasn't seeped into enough minds cross-discipline to reach this same tipping point. Until that happens, I see Agile representing both/either "we can change it whenever with no consequences" (which ISN'T what Agile is about) and "we can do complete development without the pain of any sort of documentation" (the mis-perception that it completely eliminates culpability for the business for not defining what is needed).
Just my $.02.

I believe the US is the same.
Interestingly, I just had to take my cat into the vet for surgery. They actually asked for SSN on the form (but mentioned it was optional). I mean... FOR THE VET?!? The abuse of SSN in the US is quite rampant despite there being a fairly clear rule about what SSN is meant to be used for *only*. 8/

For many years now, when someone asks me for information, my first thought is not to give the information, but to consider why I don't want to give it to that person. And I don't consider myself particularly paranoid with respect to what I share.

Can totally relate to this. Probably the most "abused" personally identifying information in the U.S. is Social Security Number.

I was under the impression that it was meant only as a means of identifying you for taxes and (of course) social security benefits. It was not meant to be used for any other purpose.

And yet, for school loans, bank accounts (that don't have any interest), and even my dentist want it because, to them, it is a unique identifier.

I had debated if I should refuse to give them that information or just comply. To my shame, I have simply complied. I tried, at first, to argue it. But there were only so many times I could tolerate the "but, the system requires it... I don't know what to do about your objection" situations that I eventually gave up knowing that, someday, it would likely come back to haunt me.

But then I figured, it would haunt everybody, so perhaps I could shift the responsibility to a future "savior."
This isn't anything to be proud of, but "giving in" has certainly made life easier.

There have been a lot of posts trying to make a distinction between "it is fine to shame someone, even if they aren't convicted" to "this only makes sense once someone is convicted."
In any/all cases, there is absolutely no positive value that comes out of this practice, as it relates to DUI. Child molesters... yeah, but drunk drivers?

What does one get out of this?
Let's say that instead of posting a picture, one placed a permanent mark on the person's forehead such that the public can now identify that person as having been involved with potential DUI or flat out convicted of it.

Would it make the person stop drinking and driving if he had to permanently carry the stigma of it?
Why stop if you're going to be vilified for the rest of time anyway?
If one does stop, is it fair to keep punishing that person for correcting his mistake?

And with the Internet these days, it _is_ forever. Sure, it might not be at the fore of your community's thinking, but a quick search and bang... get to relive being outed as irresponsible and dangerous.

This doesn't prevent it from happening again.
This doesn't shame someone into stopping.
It is purely vengeance, with no value what-so-ever OTHER THAN to scare the populace into compliance (the efficacy of which is suspect).

So, if your police practice such things, you may want to call up and ask why they're spending time and money on something that has no redeeming value.

There's an alternative way of looking at this situation (ala Hanlon's razor): "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

I wouldn't be surprised if it was simply a mistake due to lack of adequate inventory management/controls; a theft of this nature will absolutely be detected immediately which makes for a very ineffective theft.

That isn't to say it can't be intentional theft and deception; I just think it is also feasible to be simple human error.

I have both an iPhone and a MacBook and I use and love both everyday. However, I've never thought to myself, "how great would it be to have a 10-inch iPhone?"

Don't know if you know it, but you have an EXCELLENT idea!

IPhone screen too small for Grandma's failing eye site? FINALLY an IPhone for an older generation! Imagine... a bus full of elderly dialing out on their IPad phones!
It would harken back to the early days of cellphones... you know, for the nostalgic missing their brick/bag phones.
You can even explain that since it is bigger, she'd be able to hear the conversations better, too! ;)

I presume you have an iPhone. A friend of mine that has jailbroken his phone pointed out to me that the bars represent the 3G signal strength, and not necessarily the regular network strength. I was considering AT&T because the T-Mobile strength in my house is terrible. He had 3-4 bars on his IPhone, but when he turned off 3G and went to EDGE only, it averaged 1-2 bars. Point is, I don't think the signal strength always means what we think it means. 8/

More up-to-date, BB has posted that Ralph Loren has admitted a "my bad," and that they promise to be more diligent about it in the future. Scroll to just above the comments.

I'm reasonably certain it's been shown a number of times that if you build a PC with the exact same hardware as a Mac, you'll end up with a PC that costs about the same.

Actually, it has been shown to be cheaper to build your own Mac.

I'm only addressing your Hardware comparison. In reality, there are more things that go into the value of a "computer solution" than just the hardware components: software availability/quality for your own needs, support, design/appeal, etc.

You have your own answer... if it is the most sparsely populated country, then it needs the fewest towers which also means the least infrastructure investment.

As long as the company providing coverage has other markets (to take advantage of the bulk buying of equipment and leveraging of technology staff), then this becomes an "incremental expense" to them.

I suspect it would be different pricing if a cell company was trying to exist only in this market. But, I digress...

And another word of warning: with the Systemax purchase of CompUSA, consumers will be exposed to the same sourced inventory, but not realize that it is the same entity as TigerDirect.

So if you're not happy with TigerDirect, don't consider the re-formed CompUSA as an alternative... it isn't.

The real sign of failure is that video games now have even bigger opening weekends - Halo 3, followed hotly by GTA 4, really showed Holywood what an opening weekend could be.

That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Games cost $50-$70 each, while your movie ticket is going to be around $10; there's a larger in-rush of cash during an opening weekend of a game because there's a heavier hit.

If the average movie-going crowd was 5-7 people, then it could be a better comparison.