No, TDD is painful, but it's a long-term investment. If you code once and never have to touch it again, you can get away with making it work right without tests. But if you want to be able to grow your system, you want something to make sure that you don't kill the old functionality in the process of building the new. And sometimes it's just helpful to spell out the expectations of new functionality ahead of time so that you know when you've achieved it.

Process for the sake of process is pointless. And if you have good reason to work around or jettison a given process, go for it. As I told the other programmers at my job, the only piece of our process we would probably consider an absolute necessity is source control. Code review is highly recommended, tests are very strongly pushed, formatting standards are there for good reasons, but there are times when they are not helpful.

The problem always comes down to whether or not your developers are adults with good decision-making capabilities. Process is too often employed as a way to allow you to get stuff done with people of average or less ability, but process also hurts them because they can't figure out when the process is unhelpful. And if process is imposed by fiat, those who could figure that out are frustrated by having to go through the motions. But if you have trustworthy people and you actually trust them, you institute the process for their benefit, and when it's not useful they know not to use it.

He was still hung over from the JaegerMonkey party.

Insistence on a literal intepretation is not a pre-requisite for believing in Adam, the Garden of Eden, eternal sin, or Jesus dying for our sins. You've resorted to a straw man. I don't insist that all the details were exactly as reported. I do believe in the vast majority of the Jesus narrative. I'm open to there having been an actual physical Garden of Eden in some form or fashion, and possibly there being a key ancestral couple like Adam and Eve.

are you saying he's weak-minded?

That wasn't an ellipsis. It was ASCII art.

Whoosh.

It needs power so that it can eat mice, duh!

So instead, it's the people's fault, and this kind of shit will just keep happening...

A portmanteau of meme and name?

Basically Wikileaks is trying to change the world so that we are so afraid of things we do in private being revealed that we don't do anything bad. They are doing this in the name of the public, and there is something to that, but they don't seem to care if they are crossing the lines between appropriately private matters and ones where the light of day would do significant public good. They absolve themselves of responsibility by adopting a pretty much filterless approach to revelation. There are great costs accompanying the benefits they provide, and though in the grand balance they may have done more good than harm so far, the magnitude of the stakes could tip the scale the other way very quickly.

RTFL. The letter indicates that cosmic rays are more likely to be distributed throughout the body due to higher energy, whereas the lower energy X-rays used for back-scattering will likely have concentrated impact on the skin.

F-sharp (pseudo musical notation)

If you never show it to anybody, it is absolutely yours. If you show it, or distribute it, it is no longer yours in an ownership sense. Copyright is an artificial and temporary right which is granted only as incentive for you to share your creations.

Technically, you don't want to get paid for copies of what you write. You just want to get paid for doing what you like. It just so happens that getting paid for copies of your product is the primary economic mechanism for this compensation in your case. And it is (arguably) worth preserving this mechanism, but not necessarily at the cost of arming abusive corporations so that they can chug along sucking up the lion's share of money derived from OTHER PEOPLE'S creations, while they stifle personal liberty, social and educational commentary, and technological innovation.

I am not a big fan of illegal file sharing, but the *AA have taken advantage of the situation to push a reprehensible agenda.

Brilliant. Truly brilliant

You and the OP are both being unnecessarily vague and inaccurate.

The question is whether the US federal government has the authority to tell one person to purchase something from another private entity.

The local government isn't forcing you to buy something. It's forcing you to pay taxes (which it can do) and then it's providing a service (which it also can do). Even though it looks similar, paying taxes + receiving a public benefit != purchasing a consumer good.