The moment of enlightenment that occurred at the ski resort was the creation of those four values. In my mind, those are the priceless things. Agile is a set of VALUES.

The rest is unadulterated bullshit -- including the "twelve principles" (I call them the "twelve afterthoughts"). The biggest tragedy is that probably more than half of the guys went away and started creating process frameworks, tools, coaching/consulting businesses, writing books and creating process tracking software aimed at promoting their "principles". Um, does that remind anyone of the RUP?

Let me bring it to brass tacks. If your team values individuals and interactions over processes and tools, you are being Agile. If your team values the delivery of working software over comprehensive documentation, you are being Agile. If your teams value customer collaboration over contract negotiation, you are being agile. If your team values responding to change over following a plan, you are being Agile.

And that's it. You don't need scrum, kanban, Safe, Less, DaD, bullshit daily standups, finger-pointing retrospectives... etc. All you need is for your team in your organization to agree with those values and then do whatever you need to do to develop practices which demonstrate those values. THAT'S IT.

Hey IBM, how about you just feed those children without any strings attached?

... now if only large corporate user bases would get off of IE11, all of our lives would be easier.

If the article is asserting that C-suite execs should adopt the values from the original Agile Manifesto (https://www.agilemanifesto.org), then absolutely "YES".

However, if the article is asserting that C-suite execs should employ the services of a bunch of blood-sucking, business process improvement consultants to learn a new process and charge tens of thousands of dollars in training services.... then "NO". Process improvement consultants single-handedly killed Agile culture adoption by bilking companies with tools, software, and books... which is completely antithetical to the Agile values themselves.

C-suite execs shouldn't worry about a bunch of useless books, a bunch of useless processes, or a bunch of useless tools. Just read the values and adopt them. Practice them. The four values are simple. Do those things and you are Agile. That is all you need to do.

Sanders is the only one who can beat Trump. Even though most Democrats over the age of 40 don't like him -- because most Democrats over the age of 40 are Clinton-Democrats... which are basically the same as 1980s Republicans.

Sanders will beat Trump because he is the only candidate who can -- nationwide -- get young people to come out and vote. When turnout is high, Democrats win. When turnout is low, Democrats lose. Democrats need at least 10 percent higher turnout nationwide to overcome the electoral college discount. The only one who will generate high-turnout is Sanders. And there's no Democrat who will vote against Sanders in the general. They all want Trump gone.

So if Sanders wins the primary, he's the next president. If anybody else wins the primary, it is going to be a landslide for Trump.

I've owned pickup trucks for a very long time. This is terrible. First, acceleration figures with pickup trucks are non-starters. Emphasis and design should always focus on low-end torque for low-speed pulling power and maintaining pulling power at speed. A pickup truck going from 0-60 in 2.9 seconds is USELESS.

Secondly, the bed rails are slanted instead of being parallel to the ground. This makes it impossible to carry and secure some loads and it actually makes it *very* dangerous to carry other types of loads. Hauling lumber or other material which extends outside the bed rails would be incredibly dangerous and ill-advised.

This is just absolutely horrible in almost every way.

Scorsese is 100% correct, but where he goes off the radar is thinking that people exclusively go to the movies to see a masterpiece in "Cinema". That couldn't be more false. Sometimes, people just want to be entertained. Entertainment is a much lower bar.

But that's how it is with anything produced for mass-consumption. I love a good quality single malt scotch, but a lot of times, a plain old beer is just fine. F1 races are technically amazing and a wonderful experience. But NASCAR and Monster Truck jams are equally entertaining. Can't the same be said for pretty much everything?

What I really want to understand is why the older people get... they seem to fall into this same tired pattern of thinking. And we all swear we'll never do it when we reach that age... but invariably... it seems to happen to all of us. We all end up saying the same crap. Over and over again. Generation after generation.

Truer words have never been written...

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."

- Dr. Richard Feynman in his closing statement in his final report to the commission for the space shuttle Challenger disaster

Instead of continuing to create more powerful and expensive tablets or phablets, Samsung needs to actually support 4K on DeX. When you have a bunch of your customers who buy your 4K monitors/TVs, but your docking station doesn't support 4K... um... that's a bit of a contradiction. Samsung really makes me say "WTF?" so often these days...

How is he actually selling this to anybody?? Somehow, this idiot actually thinks that power can be transferred from capital to labor (or vice versa) by imposing tariffs on imported goods??? Seriously. Journalists need to do their jobs and publicly call this guy on the carpet. Even economics drop-outs know that this does not work.

Or if his reasoning is to "make things more even"... does he even understand what the hell that means? Especially in a global economic environment. SMH on this guy's logic. Where the hell is he getting his guidance from??

Object oriented languages are NOT difficult to learn for people who know procedure languages. C is a procedural language. Some of the best object-oriented programmers in the world started in C.

I would actually say the opposite to what you said. People who did not bother to learn procedural programming first are TERRIBLE in object-oriented languages. Because these kinds of programmers overly abstract everything, create millions of functions and/or methods unnecessarily. Create useless interfaces. Utilize GoF patterns which explode their code base completely unnecessarily.

There are FAR more poor OO programmers out there than procedural programmers.

Apple probably should have done an independent survey before Tim Cook (or anybody else at Apple) made such a statement. Anybody with a remote amount of objectivity can see that the language is very similar to C# and/or Java. Which I'm not saying is a bad thing, but inferring that it Swift is "less geeky" than Java and/or C# is just disingenuous.

The most non-geeky (and IMHO among the greatest) programming languages were invented in the 60s/70s and were procedural. That is just plain truth. COBOL, RPG, FORTRAN, BASIC, and LOGO. Obviously, those languages are the greatest in all contexts, but those languages advanced scientific and business systems development more than any other in that space.

I am still of the opinion that students new to programming should be learning a procedural language first. Simply for the reason of learning the rudiments of program flow, logic concepts, simple data structures, et cetera. Learning things like templating, objects, structs, inheritance, etc... those things can be learned after the rudiments have been absorbed.

Learning a language like Swift, Python, Java, C# first... seems ridiculous to me. Teach the basics, then open up their world with more advanced languages.

Based on your quotations, I now realize... you literally don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You literally don't understand even what those quotes say from an accounting perspective. You don't understand things like "unfunded", "underfunded", "projections", "frontloading", and "amortization". I mean... you literally have no clue of what you are speaking about.

There is AMPLE information out there to help people like you understand exactly what the 75 year window is, how it is formulated, and why the PAEA created this 75 year window.

You literally need to do some reading. I'm not going to sit here and educate you as you sit here and think that you know better than every major news outlet and journalist on the planet. It isn't opinion. The math has been done. The results are out there. The results of the payment schedules are out there. The projections are out there. It all points to 75 YEARS.

Stop being a dumb fuck and do some godammned reading.

75 years is not an exaggeration. That is a standard GAO projection timeframe -- as was already pointed out. Are you moronic enough to think that it is legal for the federal government to actually put into laws... different means and standards for retirement projection timeframes for it's employees? Completely stupid.

Let's be clear, the laws outline the general retirement funding level requirement. The GAO standards determine what length of time that is. Got it? Probably not.

The part of your post that is accurate is that the PAEA was passed in 2006. At the time, it made sense for everyone and it was a good move. However, the attempts to make course correction have been completely blocked by Republicans and not even brought to the floor. Or do you think that was bi-partisan, too? Again, ridiculous. At least do a little big of digging outside of your daily right-wing wordpress websites before you respond.

The desire is not to make sure that there is no money. The desire is to level the playing field and stop forcing the USPS to pre-fund their retirement accounts so far ahead of time. And to fully-fund it, at that. It is a ridiculous notion. The rest of the government averages less than 50% fully-funding of their retirement accounts... yet they still are more than able to meet their obligations to retirees.

Why shouldn't the USPS be given the same latitude? The answer always comes down to money and political motivations. UPS and FedEx are massive political donors. To put the USPS on equal footing with UPS and FedEx would actually force UPS and FedEx to compete. They don't want that to happen.