What exactly "broke"? I went from Win7 to Win8 thinking I'd remove Win8 pretty quickly due to issues and hating the interface. After about 10 minutes I was extremely confused as to why there was so much hate. Over a year later and I still have 0 issues and the OS runs exactly like Win7 in every way except for the start menu and the charms stuff. I never even touch Metro nor will anybody else as it's simply optional to use. And you can install Classic Shell or similar if you can't stand the start menu (I actually like it now after I customized it a bit with Display Fusion). So again, what "broke" that has to do with the operating system functioning and isn't the start menu which can be quickly changed?
You mean like using the Windows key many gripe about?
Exactly what leads you to believe that Windows 8 is as bad as you suggest? The other operating systems you mentioned not only had UI issues but had performance and compatibility issues. Win8's only UI issue is easily fixed, it runs faster than even Win7 and it's compatible with most everything Win7 is. I would be all for bagging on it if there was a legit reason to but I simply can't find anything wrong with the OS that makes it worse than Win7 and Win7 is a stellar OS.
They are almost exclusively for overclocking. Which, if you did that, you'd be able to do all of those things much faster. If you're going to be an idiot on Slashdot at least try to be a sensible idiot.
The Vita uses memory cards, not cartridges. And no, I am not talking about the other onboard memory you can buy. The games themselves come on memory cards and are not referred to as cartridges. The people who wrote/submitted/published this story are all sort of clueless about gaming in general. Console sales are down because everyone knew the new consoles were coming out. It doesn't make sense to buy now when the current gen is still full price. Games are winding down too as devs are pushing for the new generation. Also, the types of games you play on mobile devices are incredibly different than the games you play on a console. Even implying that you can play similar games (touch screen vs. controller/keyboard and mouse) would show that the person speaking of such things has no clue about the products and are simply pulling things out of their ass.
You are not describing the Agile process at all. You are creating your own version of Agile for the sake of your own argument and getting "insightful" votes for it which I am rather perplexed about. Test driven development using the Agile methodology allows there to be a whole lot of transparency, communication and quality pushed out in a short amount of time without anybody feeling overburdened. That's the whole point of the system. You don't end up spending half a year on something that ends up not being worth it at all. You spend a few weeks on something and everyone sees that it probably won't work or needs a lot of reevaluation and you move on to the next piece of the puzzle.
You have apparently never worked in a proper Agile environment. It doesn't work like that at all. Instead of being overwhelmed and needing to spend weeks coming up with some grand scheme that may or may not work and is hard to test you instead have teams that focus on smaller chunks of features and get something completed, code reviewed and QA'd as a whole much quicker. The daily meetings are typically only 10-15 minutes for whole teams and you do is say what you are working on that day. It allows Devs, managers, scrum masters (if you use scrum), QA and tech writers to all bring up anything that concerns them during that time. Not to mention people who typically wouldn't be friends or communicate suddenly become friends and teams really are teams with people who will back each other up and work harder to ensure that goals are met. It also cuts down on those long ass meetings that sometimes only pertains to you for 1/4 of the meeting. I worked in waterfall environments in the past and this is my first experience with Agile (been with my company for 9 months) and I have nothing but positive things to say about it. The only problem with it is that the company and everyone on it needs to buy into the process rather than try to "lone wolf" everything.
Pretty much this exactly. Also, it's tough to get programmers and managers who have never worked in an Agile environment to buy into it. My company started using it 4 years ago and we still have a few holdouts despite the obvious benefits in both productivity, cost and simply a better work environment for everyone. Hell, I think the best part about the Agile process is those one or two guys on a piece of a project that never seem to do anything and could end up causing drama simply doesn't happen in a proper Agile setup since there is daily accountability and you're working on smaller pieces.