Of course now the government is switching to agile/scrum (as opposed to the prior methodology of OMFGRAD) en masse so that requirements are gathered on the fly/after the fact and collected on sticky notes and discussed for 10 minutes a day. Because hell, if you can't get good requirements might as well have a methodology that minimizes the need for them.

Of course, considering almost all government software is dictated by business logic and legislation and often rely on existing legacy systems that can't be easily changed, I don't think it's exactly wise. I gag every time the cafe-latte sipping PM's gush about switching over toe scrum on another project so I can spend twice as long building software because my requirements are even worse now. But hey, it has a catchy name, it must be good for government work. We're all so grown up now.

It's not like a can get a high level requirement that I need to capture user information and go build a user screen in the government world. Every freaking little detail is going to be exacted upon on a user screen with rules and laws (and legacy systems) dictating what I can and can't do what is and isn't there and how it interacts with other systems. It's not that agile/scrum is always bad. It's just a square peg in a round hole of current government in most cases.

1. Much of government is custom software. In the private world less so. Not that there aren't exceptions in either case, but my bank didn't write their own custom software for finances. In government it's almost always build over buy. It's much harder for the government to change policies to fit software when much of what they are writing software for is dictated by legislation.

2. Much of government software is written last minute to meet the demands of the people we've elected that in turn force government agencies to create something from nothing, usually without proper funding and usually with unrealistic deadlines.

3. Much of government software is written by inexperienced people. Contractors and government employees are rehashed from project to project even as technology changes.

I've worked public and private for 15 years now in tech and have seen it all. DoD, Federal, and State projects from both sides of the contract/public servant side. A lot of government software is written in locations with smaller workforces leading to hiring people that are just the best you can get, now what you should get. The deadlines for government projects are almost always unrealistic. The powers that be, and I mean the legislature at the state level and agency heads in Federal, and the commanders/Washington in DoD work, don't feel like there's a ROI on almost any project, it's just stuff they "have" to do, so they don't take into account doing it right. They shoestring a budget, or don't even have a budget, and use whatever resources they can find to get things done.

Most projects aren't even contracted out completely. Many are sure. But I'd say more are a mixture of public workforce and contract or just done but the public servants at hand already. And yes, the contracted out ones are usually the worse IMO because the reason they got the contract is they "knew" the right person and it's a milking of taxpayer money. I've taken over for two projects completely outsourced to very large multi-national contracting firms whose names everyone would recognize. Both were over 70 million contracts. And both were complete crap. The systems were disgusting. We didn't even get printed binders for taking over the maintenance on either. We got some word docs in a network folder, the documents created "after" development was completed. A hodgepodge of technologies and some really bad code. For 70+ million you'd think you'd at least get a Tech Writer on the project and some bound color copies from Kinkos. Nope.

I was very clear in differentiating evolution from abiogenesis. The "goo to you" is abiogenesis to evolution.

Secondly, this is the first result I find on "Goo to you" on google.

Mutations, adaptations and changes always result from a loss of existing genetic information. They never add new information. Evolution has never been shown anywhere in all of the fossil record. In fact, just the opposite: No transitional fossil forms have ever been found! Ever wonder why? Answer: Evolution is a lie! It's the man-made fairy-tale concocted for those who don't want to believe, or refuse to believe, that they were created.

Is that what you mean? Because the above statement is false. Mutations can and have been shown to add new information. And this link is 11 years old. Not that it's outdated, it's showing that 11 years ago there was information on the web showing the above quote as wrong:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

+1.

Evolution is too complex to lead to life as we know it. But a fully formed omnipotent deity can spew from nothingness and it's all good.

Look, I'm not arguing from authority here, but I will say I've been involved in this discussion as a "hobby" for almost two decades now.

While ID, like many things, is hard to lock down to an exact definition here is the definition from the ID wiki:
Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

As always, feel free to edit it to something different. But from my experience (which is why I mentioned I've been at this a long time and thought it relevant) that is exactly how it is used/argued. I do not believe ID, in general, adheres to natural selection, and almost certainly does not refer to mutations that will eventually lead to a change in "kind" (broad general term often used by those with a preference for ID).

Irreducible Complexity, while not being ID is perhaps the most common sub-genre of it, clearly states that certain aspects of life could not "evolve" on their own. It's the old Bombardier Beetle argument that has been rehashed time and time again.

Also, I'm not using two different terms for evolution, there is no trick and I am appalled that you try to state that. That mutations are not often/usually beneficial is not a surprise or a hidden agenda. Nor is it that they are always passed on nor dominant. It's not a conflict. It's pretty damn obvious actually. Of course, no one, and certainly not I, claimed that all mutations are beneficial. I'm very confused that you even took it that way and am left to wonder what your agenda really is.

It might be possible to believe both at the same time, but it's absurd to do so...

On one side, evolution, you have natural selection leading to the selection of genetic mutations. It's verifiable, testable and the theory fits the available evidence.

On the other side, ID, you have non-natural selection. You have a designer that creates "changes". It is not verifiable, testable, and stands in the face of available evidence.

It is not fair to say ID sits in the realm of abiogenesis. It doesn't. It sits firmly in the realm of evolution. And frankly, it is completely unscientific. ID has relied on psuedo-science like Irreducible Complexity to try and look legit. But it sounds "scientific" and so is peddled to the layman to get around the problem that ID does not fit the evidence. ID is nothing but an attempt by certain religious zealots to find a sell-able solution to the phylogenetic tree that *requires* a creator.

Maybe some green ones, but I think mostly red and blue.

Or, given our current tech, nukes and explosives missiles and small ships? Just going out on a limb there.

Far future? I'll let you know when we invent the tech that lets us easily have space fights.

I wouldn't. To me it's email and I like that it's a provided service. I have a few domains right now and all their main email's just forward to my gmail account. I don't think it's much of a risk to say @gmail.com is gonna be around a while.

No, I meant a 404. Because I'm assuming he has stuff on the server he wants to keep that is his and not the other persons and not part of the hobby site. He was using it for personal reasons too for doing a 301 wouldn't work there.

Is this really a profitable thing that people support themselves off of? If so I would just stipulate he keep your used email addressed forwarded to your new gmail account or whatever. If the only thing is email, it's an easy issue to solve.

If it's not really a brand and no one's making money, if you want just keep the domain, have them get their own, transfer over the content (files) that matters, and agree to host a redirect to his new site on the main page(s) and a custom 404 can redirect to the new site as well.

I did go through this long ago as I had a very popular programming website back in the late 90's that I eventually grew tired of and just let go of but that had my email address that I used. So I just switched over everything that mattered to a new email account. I'm sure you'll forget something, but in most cases that's a phone call away from fixing. No matter what you should switch for personal use (which is what I consider banking, health, etc) to a gmail/yahoo type email account that will always be there no matter what your hobbies or attention span are.

So all your developers take lunch at the same time? Breaks at the same time?

Sounds like an assembly line which I've avoided my entire career.

Can you give some examples of what you've actually gotten out of this quickly daily meeting that you see it as worthwhile?

Exactly. They want focus. So typically about an hour or two after they get in you're going to interrupt them for almost no gain.

Why aren't your people aware without a 15 minute daily meeting?

That has nothing to do with standups. Almost every development methodology is RAPID/AGILE these days. The standups do not give any time for everyone on the team to share in enough detail to make sure you're on the right track. That meeting, with everyone involved would take hours. I've worked in a few AGILE SCRUM projects and the standups did not cut down on the amount of time we were meeting with other developers and analysts on a real-time as needed basis where we addressed the exact issues you've mentioned above.

I don't understand your point. That's exactly what the stand-up is. It's an daily meeting held at the exact time.

And I've had a very successful IT career so I'm really not worried about some guy on the interwebs telling me they wouldn't want me on their team.