Depending on the farm American tilapia are also raised on shit. At least the fish farm on Dirty Jobs was raising tilapia in the same ponds where they raised bass in order to help clean the pond for the next round of bass. They then sell the tilapia. So, some of that farmed American tilapia is raised on bass shit.

SAVE THE THRESHERS!!!

That is what I did with my Summers and I was a CS major. I don't know how good it looked on my resume when I was looking for a job, this was late 90s, so there were plenty of jobs. But, dealing with children and parents of those children shows people skills.

So, my suggestion would be to "Be Creative" don't go looking for programming jobs, look for things that demonstrate your abilities outside of programming. Volunteer opportunities, but choose something that is interesting to you. Tutor summer school kids or something like that. Teaching demonstrates the ability to communicate. I am sure there are lots of other great ideas.

Well, I was thinking that NASA could use the ISS as a transfer station. But, airports are generally government owned or quasi-government owned and private companies rely on them for their missions (aka Airlines flying passengers to their destination.) So, there is precedence.

Reusable spacecraft in space. The problem with every interplanetary mission plan is that it is a one time plan, or always involves launching the entire spacecraft form Earth every time. Why launch an interplanetary spacecraft to LEO multiple times? Launch it once and after that just launch fuel, supplies, and people. Maybe the a new lander or parts of a lander will need to be launched each time. Since, Ion engines are useful once in space fuel needs would be greatly reduced. A spacecraft that never lands should suffer very little wear and tear, so quit trying to build a single spacecraft to handle all phases of the travel plan. In addition, a reusable spacecraft that never lands can probably be built bigger and more comfortable than one that needs to survive re-entry.

1) Build one spacecraft that launches stuff to LEO.
2) Assemble an interplanetary craft in LEO along with a lander.
3) Launch supplies and crew to LEO. (could be multiple launches)
4) Transfer crew to interplanetary craft.
5) Set interplanetary craft on transfer orbit.
6) Land lander.
7) Do Stuff.
8) Launch lander to interplentary craft.
9) Return interplanetary craft to LEO.
10) Transfer people to LEO landing craft.
11) Repeat from step 3

This is one of the reasons I find any plan to de-orbit the ISS is stupid and wasteful. Even if there is no other science to be had, why waste a perfectly good transfer station for interplanetary travel? It would also probably be a good place to perform vehicle assembly since the interplanetary craft might makes sense to launch in multiple pieces or, if in a single launch, partially disassembled, so it does not have to be designed to survive launch stresses in a fully assembled state.

That is where the Agile angst I am seeing in the comments seems off. People over Process does not mean you don't have process or that having process excludes people. It means that the people are more important than the process. A change board is a pretty good process, but it is useless without the right people.

That is because percent complete is a lie to make burn down charts look good. In addition, the pain of telling the truth that at 20% complete you have discovered that whatever you are working on will take twice as long is greater over a greater period of time than pretending you can complete on time until you are "95%" done, at which point, you then deal with the pain of saying you need the extra time. That way you have avoided several weeks of annoyance and negative attention from management.

This is directly related to why all estimates are inflated because management punishes people for exceeding an estimate by 10%, but does rewards people when the work is done 30% under the estimate. Add to that the tendency to fill up the estimated time even when you do overestimate, and everything ends up costing way more than it should, and every one continues pretending that those pre-project estimates are actually accurate.

My take away from SCRUM, Agile, etc... Is "Stop lying to yourself". You don't actually know how many hours it will take to complete a software project. In part, because you and your customer either can't articulate or do not really know what you want until you see it. Accept the uncertainty and deal with it. So, it is much more effective to get something functional in front of your stake holders to discover what they really want, rather than spend a bunch of time writing documents and having meetings trying to figure out what everyone wants. Even if 50% of what was developed gets thrown out, you now have 50% of the work done in likely less time than it would have taken to have all those meetings and write the documents and get approvals.

Yes, management gets into a room and overrides the key developers also and decides not to create an ordered list and instead goes back to tagging work items.

Thirded on priority is an ordered list, and anyone who says two things are equal priority should be given a clue and if they don't get a clue fired. All that needs to be done is answer one simple question. If you can only have one of these items which would it be?

Alternative less scary versions are:
Which one do you want first?
Which one will make the customer happiest?
Which one makes more money? (Better ROI is also an option.)

True. Although, I am expressing my irritation at the fact that is such a small part of what testers end up doing because they end up spending time on testing things that would be better automated. And, if they miss it we end up with regression problems. But, once there is happiness with the UI, automation should make sure that it does not change unexpectedly, that way the tester can spend their time working on the new stuff instead of checking to make sure there was not an unexpected interaction between the old stuff and the new stuff.

The tester should not be executing automated tests either. I was probably too succinct when I said "writing automated tests" That involves deciding what the test should be, validating the test, improving based on feedback, trying other things to see if the coverage is good enough and writing the actual automated test. And, as the other reply said there is the initial test of does the interface look right, because it is hard to automate that. On the other hand once you get it right the computer can check the output and warn everyone when it changes because of an unforeseen interaction.

Which as a developer I hate. What I really want testers to do is write automated tests. The only hand test a tester should do is one to see what the automated test should do. Yes, reality ends up being a mix, but reality should be informed by the ideal. It irritates the hell out of me that testers are doing the same thing over and over, that is what computers are for.

I am a developer and I tell my testers to consider me to be evil, lazy, and malicious. They must assume I am actively trying to fool them into thinking the application is working even if it is not with the minimum amount of work possible. That generally gets them to find the defects.

Science and medical science is NOT failing us. The compound in the article was determined not to work via the scientific method, science succeeded. The pharmaceutical industry failed to develop a drug, that is not a failure of science. The pharmaceutical industry has a problem in that they are looking for blockbuster drugs. But, what is a blockbuster drug. Lately, it seems to be something that marginally increases survivability with few side effects, so they can justify prescribing it to 100,000 people at 10x the price of a generic in order to save 2 additional lives compared to the generic.

The article mentions Lipitor as the most prescribed drug. More live would be saved with the same money by prescribing cheaper generic cholesterol lowering drugs to more people because the difference in heart attacks prevented by Liptor versus the generic is a hell of a lot smaller than the price difference.

Depends on how many sounds. Music has been around for thousands of years, there a only a relatively few distinguishable notes. So, all sequences of notes shorter than a certain length must have been copied from the public domain.