Which *still* doesn't constitute success.

The term "agile development" covers a lot of ground. Much of what people mean by "agile" simply amounts to best practices (e.g. daily commits, unit testing, frequent builds etc.). But "agile" also refers to a kind of iterative and incremental approach to identifying and pursuing business goals in your project (exemplified by Scrum). That turns out to be a sensible and appropriate approach **in many but not all situations**.

Many development projects exist in a business environment where business needs evolve quickly, driven by both endogenous (management decisions) and exogenous (competition and market) factors. Likewise the software project itself, if it is reasonably successful, alters the very business conditions it is designed to address. *Under such conditions* you can't set out to build something in two years with any confidence that it will be what is needed twenty-four months from today. On the other hand, no programmer can be productive if he gets a different set of marching orders every day. You are forced by circumstances to adopt a flexible, iterative approach that allows the programmers to actually complete useful work before its specifications become obsolete, which contains the scope of *change-driven* failure and points your team in the right direction sooner rather than later.

But it is critical to remember that not *all* projects are like that. If you are writing software to control a spacecraft or a nuclear power plant, you don't sit down and bang out a little production code to figure out what it is you need to build. There's a lot more you can and should do to prepare for coding, and the classical engineering principle of discovering requirements as early in the process applies. It applies to the chaotic business situation too, but in that situation many requirements are simply impossible to anticipate.

In any case, the phrase "world's biggest agile project" should give any thinking developer pause. "Huge" and "agile" (in the goal-setting sense) don't go together. It seems to me that the idea of approaching *some things* in a waterfall manner (still using many best practices associated with "agile") and *others* in an interactive, exploratory fashion is the approach they should have been taking from the start.

HTML and CSS need to be parsed and interpreted. The XML definitions of forms used by modern UI toolkits likewise need to be parsed and interpreted. Java and .NET bytecode don't need to be parsed quite so much, but like JavaScript, they still need to be interpreted.

It did until Android 4.2, which dropped support for the Wii Remote.

What "new shared-memory architecture"? Nintendo 64 had shared memory. So did Xbox and Xbox 360. So do any PCs with "integrated" graphics on the northbridge or CPU.

The 360's screen is probably bigger,* which allows up to four players holding Xbox 360 Controllers to fit comfortably around the screen. You could plug your laptop into the same HDTV monitor and plug the same controllers into the USB ports, but I'm told most don't.

* I'm referring to physical size measured in diagonal inches, not resolution measured in pixels. A lot of 360 games run at 1024x576, but 1024x576 on a 32" monitor is better for multiplayer than 1920x1080 on a 15" monitor.

Not officially at least. But the first few drive chip versions also supported DVD media, and some apps were released for the Homebrew Channel to play DVD Video.

What in particular makes the CSS rendering model more processing-intensive than the rendering model of a similarly capable "native" toolkit? And what makes JavaScript more processing-intensive than .NET, Java, or any other kind of bytecode that's intended to execute on more than one brand of hardware?

No, make that five. Steam Box adapts the existing PC standard, and Ouya adapts the existing Android standard.

Yet the console makers have historically been opposed to micro-ISVs developing for their platforms, like when Nintendo rejected Bob's Game because Robert Pelloni couldn't demonstrate the trappings of a "legit" business. Among seventh-generation console makers, Microsoft was the most indie-friendly with XNA on Xbox 360. Have the console makers announced their plans for courting indie developers this generation? Or are PCs ready to open up to genres traditionally associated with consoles, such as fighting games, party games, and cooperative platformers?

Don't piss off the rich guy.

Wait one minute here. I agree that personal feelings should not be the reason for creating a business. HOWEVER, New York is notorious with people who have an axe to grind. For example, I know people that pay next to nothing for an apartment because it is part of the old controlled rent program. This apartment is handed down from family member or so on. This is not a free market, but communism!

About Bloomberg getting into the billion club. He created Bloomberg! I guess that says nothing, but it is a service for the wall street types. Pretty good actually have used it in the past.

I'm in the outsourcing business and we're fleeing Argentina ASAP. They seem bent on some kind of fascist autarky.

Which require the sub to carry hardcopy of all the EU regulations stipulating how hardcopies of EU regulations should be carried.

PS an "average" EU specification and regulation for the steering wheel on a bus runs in excess of 80 pages.

I'm not quite obese but I am overweight, and it's because I suffer from two conditions (CFS and arthritis) that making losing weight extremely difficult. It isn't a lifestyle choice, and before these two things got bad I was able to stay fairly trim.

I feel bad. I don't like the way I look. Thing is though, it really isn't my fault. I wish it was because then I could do something about it.

Don't make assumptions about people you don't know.

Obesity is a medical problem but not always a sign that the person has poor willpower or doesn't look after themselves.

I struggle with my weight a bit, and it's because I suffer from CFS and Reactive Arthritis. My doctor is a dick. When I ask for help he just blames me for not doing enough. He probably does see a lot of patients who just want an easy way to loose weight with no effort, and this bias means I am having to go around him to get any treatment. Needless to say I am switching doctor.

This isn't just misleading advertising. Many journals put the dates right on the paper in the publication. I've got one on my desk right now that says "Recieved: 29 November 2006 / Revised: 2 April 2007 / Accepted: 12 April 2007 / Published [...]".

Note that the second gap is much shorter, because if the initial submission was good, all that is needed is enough time to verify that the revision addresses all the issues raised by the reviewers during the first gap. If that's what the "4 days" refers to, it's a non-issue.

OTOH, if the first gap was only 4 days, there is cause for alarm. The publisher has to do a little preprocessing to figure out who would be appropriate reviewers, write them, wait for them to respond, try again if too many say no (or don't bother responding at all), then get the paper to the reviewers and allow them enough time to review it (often a month or more).