Not at the time I posted they weren't. The rebels were still delaying and stalling.
Nonsense, you're just a classic case of "I never really bothered to learn a proper agile process, I just guessed a bit at it and went on a bit of hearsay and it all went wrong".
Agile has it's place, and it can drastically improve some forms of development. I don't think any Agile processes declare that you should just start writing code without any idea of what you're writing. SCRUM for example encourages use of a feature list known as the product backlog (i.e. list of things we'd like to do) which you then work through in two week sprints. You can setup a burn down chart where you log each item as it's ticked off and build a chart from it that predicts the finish time of the project based on what's remaining in the current backlog.
This means that when someone comes along and says "I want to add this feature in" they can do exactly that, but the point the burn down chart intersects with "features remaining" extends off into the future a bit further so that they have instant rough visibility of the impact of their request to change.
Your understanding of Agile is exactly backwards, it doesn't make things worse, it makes things better by aiding visibility of impact of change and by allowing you to keep control of costs - if that chart looks like it's tending off too far into the future, you can just cut the project short and accept that the lowest priority features will be axed as a result but that at least there will be no cost overrun.
You shouldn't really be re-writing anything much if you develop code competently in a modular manner, but if you do, at least the person demanding the re-write gets to see what other features will be cut, or how much more time and cost there will be from their actions when you use something like SCRUM.
Am I saying Agile is the be all and end all saviour? Not at all, I think SCRUM works poorly for smaller scale projects - a SCRUM team should supposedly be between 5 and 9 people whereas an awful lot of the world's software is still built with only say 1 to 3 developers. I also think most Agile zealots themselves have no idea what they're doing but are mostly just blaggers screaming "Hey, let's all be a bunch of cool hipsters and have stand up meetings randomly and not getting anything actually useful done just because!" but that doesn't mean it's an inherently bad tool overall and if used properly. There are still a lot of large successful businesses and software houses that do quietly just get on with using it properly for what it's worth and who are better off for it.
Agile's biggest problem is this assumption that it's a thing you can just start doing with no understanding or training, that's completely nonsense. Like everything else it's a change that has to be phased in a sensible manner by people who actually understand it. Too many people just try and implement it with about as much clue about it as you've shown just so they too can feel cool by jumping on the bandwagon and say they use Agile and then it fails spectacularly as a result but doing it this way is a bit like sticking someone with zero fighter experience into a fighter jet and watching them brag about how they're going to do a "4g inverted dive with another aircraft" because they saw Tom Cruise do it on TopGun and think they want to be cool like him. It isn't going to end well, it's going to fail spectacularly, though just like Tom Cruise, they will if nothing else be an absolute twat.
Don't really agree, I often use the same languages at home as work and I prefer it that way because I'm more productive due to being intimately familiar with the technologies in question.
Most the work I've done in the last year has been C#, and I've been using it at home also. I'm much better off working like this than using say C++ for game development in my spare time because I can simply get more done. As an indie I'm not writing the latest and greatest FPS so C# with things like Unity, MonoGame and so forth are more than adequate for what I need and also the best option because there's nothing that'll get me up and doing what I want to do any faster. Sure I could use Java and OpenGL, or C++ and OpenGL or DirectX but I want to actually write games, not write engines.
I don't see what using a different language would get me, other than less productivity. I simply use the right tool for the job and if the job is getting game development done then why wouldn't I use the same language as at work?
It seems pointless to artificially cripple yourself by excluding a potentially superior tool for the task at hand just because it's also what you use at work.
I don't really know what you mean by "more easily separate them", I find it easy to know when I'm sat at home rather than in the office, and I find it easy to tell that I'm doing game development rather than business development so I don't see what difference a language change would possibly make. But then, I'm also not sure what you mean by "can the language hate, it's fine for small projects". It's also fine for extremely large projects, so I don't really know where you're coming from there.
To me the language is a triviality, it's such an irrelevance in the grand scheme of things, it's the design, the problem solving, and the end product that make the difference that keeps me interested in my spare time, I couldn't care less what it is written in, the language is just a small implementation detail, an important initial thing to decide upon, but small in practice once the decision is made. Getting caught up on language and library details is the antithesis of being a productive programmer - you shouldn't be thinking about the language or the libraries at all, the language should just flow from your fingers naturally without thought. It's the problem solving that should be taking up all of your thoughts so I'd wager if you're getting caught up on language details to even notice that you're using the same language as at work or not and that that in some way frustrates you then you may well lack familiarity with the language, its tools, and its libraries more so than you're willing to accept. Switching to something different again will only prolong the time with which it takes you to acquire that necessary familiarity to be productive.
No, power density, the Google spec is for watts per unit volume. It's an extremely important specification.
However you may and wish to try and twist the argument to cover up your misunderstanding that's still not what is deemed in law to be criminal infringement because it's still not commercial activity.
You may dislike the word profit but that's generally the key factor, the only exceptions are if you're say doing it to encourage your business to grow in other areas - i.e. you can have this "free" illegal copy if you buy something else from us.
Using BitTorrent in a personal capacity is by definition not a commercial activity.
What laws are broken exactly? I used to work in schools, granted it was some years back now but there was never any such law that said you had to keep children safe, mostly it was just parents/teachers who had no idea what they were doing or how well these things work.
A friend who is still currently a teacher also tells me he's not aware of any laws mandating filters at schools and in fact the advice he's been given by his local teaching advisory service is to start focussing more on educating kids precisely because the feedback from teachers has been that the filters are ineffective.
Just because we got by without computers before Google images doesn't mean that's okay. We also got by without fire, and medicine but it doesn't change the fact we're better off with these things. It's called human advancement. It's kind of a big deal, especially in education.
What'd be interesting therefore is to know how many of the few percent who opted in later opted out after finding what a nuisance it was. These figures only refer to those who initially opted in and say nothing about whether they stuck with it.
Number of people continuing to use it will likely be even lower again.
I'm not too concerned about their stock price, I'm concerned about their cash flow and the future of the business.
Hell, if I put a Raspberry Pi inside the scooped out guts of ENIAC, it would be just like ENIAC was streaming a movie... right?
I'm thinking of pulling the beads off an abacus and throwing a Raspberry Pi to show how an abacus can stream movies... and then maybe hollowing out a stone and showing how cool streaming could have been in the Neolithic...
Sarcasm mode off
I would not recommend holding onto the stocks of a company whose overall balance sheet has been stagnant for about a decade, and where its core revenue source is sufficiently threatened that they're undergoing a major restructuring to pivot away from it altogether. One quarterly earnings report is nothing to make investment decisions about.
The last time I saw this sort of acquisition, layoff, and rehiring cycle from a major company, it was Pfizer, and that did not end well for the shareholders.
They pull no punches on that one. Regarding video chat - which is useful for communicating using ASL:
Accordingly, we are concerned about the Commission’s proposal to permit
broadband providers to degrade applications to a “minimum level of access” in lieu of a
full-throated no-blocking rule. A “minimum level of access” rule would open the door to
a two-tiered Internet, placing users who are deaf or hard of hearing that depend on
performance-intensive video and other applications to communicate at the mercy of their
broadband providers’ willingness to negotiate with the users’ application providers of
choice—and the ability of those providers to pay for sufficient access. This ability to pay is
especially in doubt for niche providers that serve primarily the market of people with
disabilities and have little mainstream market penetration, such as relay service providers,
remote interpreting services, and other innovative accessibility services. To ensure access
for both users who are deaf or hard of hearing and application providers on equal terms,
the Commission should strongly consider its alternative approach of banning priority
Crowbars won't save you now.
One potential perk that they didn't think of is automatically orienting the phone's screen to face you without relying on the accelerometer. (If I put my phone down on the desk or hold it at a shallow angle, it doesn't know which way's "up", but the Fire Phone knows where my face is so this shouldn't be a problem.)