Alternative view: Places where employees are encouraged to change and grow over their decade(s) of employment are more innovative, yet more stable, than places that encourage drive-by work. New ideas only get implemented in a half-assed way if the person who promoted the idea is already two jobs further in his career.
Seems to be working okay. My country (The Netherlands) is consistently in the top happy countries, definitely near the top healthy countries.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that European countries are communist. We're not, but by and large we've heavily regulated and, in some cases, nationalized things that should not be run for profit, like health care. I'm still miffed that the train system was privatized. It's gone down-hill since then.
You can do anything you want to anyone, period. The difference is that being an unethical asshole has consequences in other areas. The deficiency lies with business.
Ever notice how, when you're driving and need to find your way, so you're peering at all the street signs, you turn the radio down? Most people can't do it with a high radio volume.
Multitasking is a myth.
That might make you feel warm and fuzzy, but it's not actually true. US foreign policy is based on US interests.
Ron Paul took a lot of flak years back for saying that the US is responsible for creating a climate that allowed Al Qaida to strike on 9/11 2001, but he was absolutely on the money.
Media in the US, however, don't exactly report on what the US actually does. Just one of many parallels between the soviets and present day US (besides propaganda, this includes comprehensive spying on its own citizens, disappearing citizens and use of torture). This used to be something that would upset Americans.
And we're still at lower rates now. So killing prisoners doesn't influence murder rates. Why do it then? Shits and giggles?
So... money? You'd kill a person for money.
How much of society's money would you be willing to have someone killed for? Ten million? A thousand? Somewhere in between, perhaps.
How's that working out for you? Murder rate in the US is higher than (almost?) any western country that has abolished the death penalty.
Not really interested in what they think.
Which is the problem with United States foreign policy expressed in seven words, right there...
Acceptance testing involves testing the newly built functionality in the entire system. A product owner should signal any integration issues. Test and review is also a bit broader than just testing the code in question; if a problem is spotted with adjacent functionality, fix it.
That said, full-on systems testing is lacking, and we don't do any regression checks at the moment. We'll get to regression sprints before long, with this project, I think.
My agile workflow involves development work until Dev Done, then I hang up a rest-and-review task. Once another developer has checked my work for functionality and improvements, it goes into acceptance. Once there, the Product Owner has to test it for functionality and accept it or reject it (if it doesn't conform to the specs). Only then is the task considered 'done' for the sprint. So five stages a task will go through.
How does that skimp on testing? It's leaps and bounds more useful testing than any waterfall project. Waterfall skips the test-and-review, and once you do get to testing, you're doing the entire system, meaning you miss huge chunks of it.
The hell? My daily standup is 2-4 minutes. Restrospective takes 15-30 minutes, subsequent planning takes another 30-45. We do weekly sprints, so you're looking at an average worst-case of averaging 19 minutes a day. Boo-fucking-hoo.
If your standups take 2 hours, then screw that. Tell them what you did, what you're going to do, and what's blocking you. If someone wants to have a long discussion, sit back down and go to work, because the standup is apparently over. If anyone complains, tell them to take a course in scrum.
Unarmed lone black youths who viciously attack groups of armed police officers. In repeated situations. If you really think your police force is justified in executing unarmed young people. Liberal as Slashdot may be, this is a civil rights issue. If it does not get resolved, you *will* get lynching of cops, only it won't be unarmed lone black youths at that point.
From what I read in American media, the liberal stance is "Too much income inequality is bad". ie, if enough people have too little to live on, because too much wealth accumulates to the wealthy, that's bad. You get revolutions that way, and no one wants that. Liberals tend to believe wealth gap is too large, and needs to be shrunk. Not obliterated in some communist's wet dream, but shrunk. The only straw man I see is what you just wrote about the liberal stance.
Disclaimer: I'm Dutch. Our liberals are our right-wingers, and our left-wingers are actual socialists, the Socialist Party.
but i (hopefully) i expect a (honest) criticism
You must be new here.