Where did you go during that six months, and did the team's manager get fired for not doing his or her job?

If developers are not allowed to add their own bugs or issues, then either your team is too big for agile or the project is too small for your team. Instead of prohibiting that, somebody needs to oversee all the bugs and issues that get added, and part of their job should be to provide feedback when anybody submits an issue report that is not well-aligned with the customer's or user's interests.

How do you square that advice with the agile advocacy of incremental development starting with a minimal prototype? Anybody who thinks about it objectively realizes that you don't want a mock-up to be backed by anything like your final code, but Agile strongly calls for developing a minimal app that can finish user stories -- and then solving more stories by extending that code. That conflicts with the first pass being a mock-up that you expect to extensively rework.

What's actually documented is that big software projects have a high probability of failure. The level of detail in their requirements is, like the failure rate, a consequence of size.

Agile seems mostly like it is meant to let developers write more prototypes, with the expectation of throwing them away, in the name of "responding to change" -- particularly when, as often as not, the change is due to defects in the development process rather than any underlying technical or business reason. Instead of planning, there's a frivolous focus on making things that look good or check some box but don't necessarily have a solid architecture.

You are basically just saying that agile is more *fr*agile than waterfall -- given two teams of equal "discipline" and skill, you're likely to have something closer to the original intention with waterfall than with agile, because (in your words) agile requires more discipline to work well. Also, you're spouting nonsense when you say that the point of daily meetings is to free managers from micro-managing; if they wanted to stop micro-managing, they would not have a meeting each day where the explicit purpose is to point fingers.

Waterfall doesn't need a long QA/QC cycle if you put thought into design validation and verification beforehand, and spend some time developing tests in parallel with developing code. Putting off test planning and preparation will hose you whether you use waterfall or agile or whatever else.

More to the point, who outside Apple develops embedded software for an Apple platform?

I apparently know better than you what a typo is.

I regret thinking you had any intention of arguing in good faith, and shall not make that mistake again.

Facebook was a typo. Please excuse my brain for substituting one social networking site for another one. Do you get so easily butthurt because you're an oversensitive moron, or because you're a troll?

I know perfectly well why it's a stupid thing to do, regardless of whether one has a security clearance or even any significant access to trade secrets, export-controlled materials, or anything similar. I can't convince strangers about that, though, and I haven't been on the receiving end of such spam, so I don't have a solution for the general problem. I do think it is spectacularly stupid to jump, as you did, from "LinkedIn has an entirely optional way for you to give them control of your email" to "DOD employees should not be allowed to use FaceBook, period". My way of fighting that particular stupidity is to call you on it.

Are you getting those invitations from people with security clearances? If so, try letting their security officers know -- security@example.org, or whatever domain name they used. They will almost certainly get a dressing down, will probably get written up, and everyone else at the site or company will get a sternly worded reminder (in addition to their annual training) never to share their passwords with anyone, for any reason.

You complain loudly that people with clearances shouldn't do that, but so far you have not even asserted that they have done that -- only that some people on the Internet do -- much less provided so much as an anecdote to convince anyone that they gave their password to LinkedIn. That's most of why I called you and your argument stupid. The other part is that you jumped straight from "LinkedIn lets you do something stupid" to "I simply cannot fathom any DOD employees being allowed to use LinkedIn, period", and that's missing a whole chain of implications to support the conclusion.

DC has a moderate number of non-cleared (and even mostly unrelated to government) jobs in IT and engineering. They pay much closer to the national average. A while back, a recruiter I talked to seemed very surprised that a software development manager with 10 years of progressively advancing experience and a secret (not TS or poly) clearance could make $140k/year. Salary-survey web sites seem to say IT and engineering fields average $100k-$120k/year, which seems low to me; maybe I haven't looked at all the non-government-related jobs enough.

What do friendly countries do when they have US citizens working in facilities or on systems that the friendly countries have classified? There is probably a quite elaborate (social/management) protocol for reciprocating security clearances, supplemental background checks if deemed appropriate, and who knows what else. There would not be much point in distinguishing between "releasable to (country list)" and "not releasable to foreign citizens" without something like that.

You must be one of those stupid people who are going to be stupid, because as someone else explained to you even before my earlier comment, LinkedIn does not require its users to submit any password for any email account. You are making entirely unwarranted (and stupid) assumptions about what other people have done, and then using those faulty assumptions to argue about what people should be allowed to do.

The stereotypical reason to offshore a job is to reduce costs, so pointing out that offshoring these jobs would increase costs is not a tangent -- it's an explanation of why they are unlikely to be offshored. Besides, that BAE Systems logo doesn't mean that it was developed outside the US. BAE owns a huge number of US locations, which are operated mostly independently by a subsidiary incorporated in the US.

Companies don't automatically make profits. You can start a new business, but you are still going to face competition from overseas. Most new businesses fail, and those that don't require the founder(s) to stay super-busy for quite a few years before the business starts to operate well. Of course, it might never operate that well; the owner might make less than they did before, but just have more control over their schedule and work. Starting your own business neither prevents offshore competition nor ensures financial success.

Citation needed on why it doesn't work so well. For one thing, railgun tech probably isn't all that highly classified. For another, offshoring to other members of the Five Eyes isn't going to reduce costs much -- and highly classified stuff generally couldn't be offshored anywhere that is much cheaper than the US. For a third, some highly classified stuff is NOFORN (not releasable to foreign nationals, even if they otherwise have appropriate security clearances and otherwise might have a need to know).

You should write a letter. Or file a lawsuit. I'm sure that the US court system would show all due appreciation for your desire to prevent people from exercising their freedom to associate with LinkedIn.