Uncategorized

Manual GETTING WILD AT WORK: Five Hardcore Workplace Sex Shorts

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online GETTING WILD AT WORK: Five Hardcore Workplace Sex Shorts file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with GETTING WILD AT WORK: Five Hardcore Workplace Sex Shorts book. Happy reading GETTING WILD AT WORK: Five Hardcore Workplace Sex Shorts Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF GETTING WILD AT WORK: Five Hardcore Workplace Sex Shorts at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF GETTING WILD AT WORK: Five Hardcore Workplace Sex Shorts Pocket Guide.

Strangers In The Park. Taken at the Police Station. Maid to Order 3. Taken at the Poker Game. The Allure of Power. I Love To Lick: The Anal Sex Collection. Five Slut Wife Erotica Stories. Do My Wife With Me! Spread, Bent and Stuffed: Not Both of You! They All Took Turns with Me: Double Team Anal Sex. Twenty Hardcore Erotica Stories. Extremely Rough Group Sex. Five Double Penetration Erotica Stories. Taken By A Group. Very Rough Sex Stories. They All Took Me Hard: Lots of Hard Cocks for My Wife: Anal Sex Threesome Stories.

Double Penetration Erotica Stories. Five Rough Hardcore Sex Shorts. How to write a great review. The review must be at least 50 characters long. The title should be at least 4 characters long. Your display name should be at least 2 characters long. At Kobo, we try to ensure that published reviews do not contain rude or profane language, spoilers, or any of our reviewer's personal information. You submitted the following rating and review.

We'll publish them on our site once we've reviewed them. Offering exclusive content not available on RedTube. Double Penetration 4, Videos. Big Tits 37, Videos. Ads are the worst, right? Join RedTube Premium and never look back. Adblock users get a week free. Creampied by tricky porn agent. DriverXXX Cutie trades backseat sex for ride. Angel is an angel of young beauty. Hypnotized hot Courtney James. Share my cumshot ladies. Download Video Select video quality HD p p p. But doing so at a massive and avoidable cost. This will come home to roost. Examples — Blackberry and Yahoo.

The core problem is that far too many folks only know what they know. Most people are from commercial IT where very, very few best development or PM best practices are used.

Free porn sites

Decades of this has ruined the experience base ;leaving leads to think they know what the best practices are when they have no clue. The loop will continue except for those rare places where someone comes in from the outside, probably DoD, has the courage to drive change and beats the culture back. Lightning striking the same spot 10 times in a row has better odds. Working software over comprehensive documentation — this is just wrong. People change jobs all the time. If a new person comes to the project the lack of comprehensive documentation makes his work sisifian and inefficient.


  • A Mans Decision to Change;
  • Dani Daniels at work?
  • Keeleys Curse?

Also Waterfall provides a working software, agile does not. Software that partially works is not working software. Customer collaboration over contract negotiation- each time a customer wants an important change this means more time of work and should mean more money paid by this customer. The customer should collaborate to the project by saying exactly what he wants. The customer is usually not technical so he cannot contribute in technical details like the structure and such. Having it collaborate in this is problematic. So I disagree with this. Responding to change over following a plan- again wrong.

A structural plan is absolutely needed. If you would build a house following this motto it will collapse at the smaller pale of wind. There are some basic structural things that needs to be known from the start. And the customer should pay for this change. You cannot weasel out by saying respond to change over following a plan. This may work in the business work, but in the real work it does not. I think this is a popular misconception with Agile. Does not mean we do not document or have a plan.

Rants, essays, and diatribes.

Equally, Agile does not mean no planning, it means planning is continuous, but does not mean following an initial plan by route, rather re-planning as evolving circumstances, opportunities and threats occur and making the plan transparent as well as the reasons for change. Again is wrong to call a project Waterfall as Waterfall was not used by anyone in its pure form.

About done by sprint here is a big issue: Also testing cannot usually be automatised so Agile fails once more. Agile means you change the plan so often that no one is sure how a feature should work internally by the end of the sprint. The reason for change is because the client had a bad idea while sitting on the toilet. Or because he saw something at another similar and thought it was neat although usually it is just dumb.

Please stop with your idealism and smell the roses. The reality is that Agile was designed for whiny undecisive customers that do not know what they want. Gary pointed out that agile recognises the importance of processes, documentation, contracts and planning, but seeks to suggest appropriate priorities for these concerns.

This seems, unfortunately, to be a common misadventure, which I suspect is to do with either ignorance of, or contempt for process and culture management within IT. Is just that many choose to turn a blind eye to this reality of Agile development. Maybe there are 1 or 2 exceptions to this but in majority of cases this is what agile is. Those of you with only commercial IT experience none in DoD or the like where actual best dev and PM practices are used are not seeing the forest for your trees.

The issue is not Agile vs Waterfall. You need to get out of that forest to see how incredibly off your understanding is. Most documentation created during a sprint is of little value months later. What was coded in one sprint will be improved in a later one. Actually useful documentation includes: What you seem to fail to understand is that documentation is invaluable to anyone new to the project or even the section of the code. Because otherwise is detective work going through dozens of jiras and mails and so on until you can figure out what the code was supposed to do.

Sometimes moronic clients make requirements changes so often that I have trouble keeping track even with the changes I made. I agree, Rational Unified Process uses Milestone system. RUP is more heavier on documentation than Agile but all the templates are defined for you so you can easily fill them up and the whole document framework can be easily created for every project.

Requirements and design phases are more in focus at the beginning, until they become more stable and less prone to changes. RUP is a system that I have seen working on many projects so yeah it is a good alternative for Agile. This is a benefit, not a gotcha or failure of the process. As for what they are — think of refactoring and other repaying of technical debt.

Not big debt, but the small kind that accumulates constantly. A Scrum codebase, being kept in a state of perpetual emergency, quickly comes to reflect that fact. You could say that engineers can just communicate that technical debt to the business and wait for them to realize that they need to fix it. I have a number of times. I have a pretty good idea how it comes out. Refactoring giving no business value, is not worth doing at all. So, STFU and find business value of refactoring. Long time criminally undervalued and a hefty price to pay nowadays.

Sorry, can you please elaborate? Are you saying business value of refactoring is security? So you try to cram the new feature into the codebase as it is leading to more and more ugly code making changes more and more time consuming leaving less and less time for refactorings. If you already know you are not going to be able to deliver the functionality including quality , then tell that to customer instead of increasing the mess.

Quality is about meeting requirements. Refactoring is reorganizing code based on a particular expectation of change which may or may not happen. This would be true if correctness, performance, security, usability and maintenance costs i. Sorry but I think this is just paradoxical and circular. These costs not occurring is most probably the result of fixing the problem early in the first place unless you are just plain lucky. Sadly, the other way is more common, i. Quality is not about meeting requirements but about meeting expectations, stated or not.

Requirements are fundamentally incomplete. Code is an exact documentation of the requirements. If they were exact, we could make a computer perfectly interpret and execute them. Agile transforms the client in a whinny baby. If you ever had to deal with children you will have had the situation where you tell the child that something he does not like needs to be done. So you end up dong what the moron tells you to and when the shit hits the fan you show him that you warned him this will happen but it does not matter anymore.

If the present code looks ugly, nobody cares about the future code. If the present code looks ugly, nobody understands it. Beautiful code is the art of solving the problem of feature, maintainability, testability, readability, chosen language, programmers state of joy and a too short life. So my experience is, that people anyway will avoid certain tickets and try to get involved in other tickets, because the code has a certain ownership.

In the end ugly code breaks up your team. What are you going to tell the man, who is asking you: Why are you leaving that shit on my way? Are you telling that ugly code has more business value than beautiful code?

This make an enormous difference for the saleability of products and companies. Apple turned into the biggest corporation on earth because they had a good, clean, object-oriented operating system which, when the need arose, could be ported to a phone! So it all depends. Good code can make or destroy a company. Good code can also be a waste of time — this most often happens when there is premature optimization on the engineers part e. Appearing busy is the opposite of productivity. For a coder, nothing is easier than to appear busy. But hardly anything ever got one. Productivity was a factor 10 lower than I was used to in this place.

Group of brutal dudes fucks anal hole of one tied up slut

Reblogged this on Java Dev. Thanks for writing this Michael. I agree putting all your faith in any tool, language, framework, etc is a bad idea. I really would like to see you write about microservices. Probably we could try and prescribe when and where such things have highest probability of success? Michael was most likely part of mismanaged agile project. How is the business supposed to make reliable judgements about development times if they ignore the judgement of senior developers, or even junior developers, and make up their own estimates about how long something ought to take?

Michael made an argument about not having time to try something which might fail — but Scrum lets you make time. It annoys the hell out of me, too, when someone assumes that you must have missed something. As for your second question, the forces that lead to doomed agile adoptions are much, much larger than a single person can handle. How the hell do you expect two days of Scrum training to address that problem? People generally believe one of two things: The people who tends towards 1 will find agile anywhere from annoying to insane.

The people who tends towards 2 tend to succeed with agile, assuming that they can find the resources ideas, money, time, and people to do something valuable with the feedback they gather. Many people out there are kicking the ball in entirely the wrong direction, and people like the author of this blog post end up hurt as a result.

We all make that mistake. Ignore the Fundamental Attribution Error bit. Michael is saying, among other things, that applying the Scrum rules as written often gives a bad experience. So why are you focusing on methodology, and worse, on methodology that makes bad people worse? I used to consider Scrum an interesting experiment in how to do project management. Scrum is a set of rules that must be carefully applied by good people or they actively do harm.

I agree with one addition: When 50 kg overweight, one tries to do sit-ups. One does 10 of them, then feels sharp abdominal pain. The fat, not the sit-ups, causes the problem. Reviewing the Scrum guide http: Indeed, almost nobody has. I had thought Michael was doing a pretty good job in his article of picking something specific to address as Agile, but I had forgotten the extent to which nobody actually does Scrum.

I agree that a lot of the problems that Scrum shows are real and not caused by Scrum. Is that a good thing? If I want to specialize, or am really good at something, or happier doing something … not allowed. Even in a perfect world, I disagree that scrum is always the right way to do things. Solutions should be designed around the problem, not the other way.


  1. The IntenSati Method: The Seven Secret Principles to Thinner Peace.
  2. What is Kobo Super Points?;
  3. Cheater (Personal Foul Book 12)?
  4. How I became a sex worker at 52 and loved it: Anonymous woman reveals all!
  5. The Land That Scrum Forgot https: Besides discussing some of the same failures as this thread, it also gives some good history of how the bad aspects of scrum arose. To look at it another way: I struggle with this one. On the one hand, yes, any crazy recipe can be made to work by sufficiently-determined people. On the other hand, I see a significant, clear difference between martial law and agile software development!

    We come back to the clashes of worldview. Dictators can always seize power temporarily, but the long arc of time bends towards justice. From this you can believe either that dictators have free rein to run parts of the world at their whim and leisure or you can believe that dictators will always fail.

    Two reasonable interpretations of the same observations. So it is with agile: Alas, that explains things like the games industry and most modern police departments. My many thanks, keep up the good fight! In all versions I have encountered, quality suffers, and no clear management structure exists.

    Standard response — thanks for the null input. Why "Agile" and especially Scrum are It could be hard to find a methode which is not containing more than a bit of the others. There is no perfect rule to choice. A lonesome wulf is a lonesome wulf. I any kind of project. You hit the nail. A mix of them. The problem with this? They need to know ahead the cost per module, but there is no way, because new functionality can be found during the development Moreover if you are using UCD. I say this having developed software since the days of the big orange Yourdan design book.

    The companies I worked for that adapted agile were always a disaster and produced very inefficiently buggy spaghetti code. Because of the 2 week scrum schedule pressure, there was never time to rework buggy, poorly written code. All of the emphasis was on getting to the next user story as quickly as possible. Taking longer than anticipated on a story was strictly forbidden.

    It also tended to benefit entry level and clueless team members to the detriment of the more experienced team members. I came across the Spiral Model — http: Identify the problem to be solved, or identify what needs to be improved. Devise a plan, and define what is a success. How shall we tackle the problem? Carry out the plan. Decide if the goals have been met.

    After each cycle ending with 4, we begin again with 1. This is often done informally, as steps 1 to 4 often result in a single published scientific paper anyway. Anyway, we very often have mixed assignments: Something should be ready in three days, another thing must be finished in four weeks, another project in five months. Scrum is a problem in itself from the fixed sprints to the daily meetings. The precious knowledge of skilled programmers being held hostage of the business. They fooled us so well that I know countless developers that are actually proud of being part of a Scrum process, not because makes things easier, not because delivers better software, just for being part of a hype, created and enjoyed solely by the business.

    Seriously, if you ignore the knowledge of skilled programmers then that is definitely not a problem of Scrum or Agile. Therefore of you think you have knowledge that is important speak with your team about it, the team itself decides how things are implemented. Yes I can see that. Sometime it is helping to sleep a night over. But back to topic, I know there are a lot of problems and as far as I can judge it is because Scrum in general can be interpreted and adopted in many ways, some work, some do not.

    In some cases people blame it on Scrum, in some cases they blame it on Management in some cases they blame whoever. I think the problem is shifting to the environment and situation around. Well Scrum is really open actually, so that is why the process might be the problem for a lot of people, can we agree on that? As Carlo has written, he points out that knowledge is held hostage. Question now would be why he is thinking it is held hostage?

    I think as a developer I should be free to use my knowledge to improve whatever product and process is used, help out my team as much as I can. But I am drifting off. I think the process can be fine, but is not fine for every situation and environment. Best would be to empirically try it out and improve it if it does not work out, that would be an Agile way, tailored exactly for the situation over time. Who is to blame? Instead of saying what is bad it would be way more interesting on how can it be improved or what people do that can work as that definitely would be more productive.

    My own experiences are that most technical people hate it and pretty much all non-technical people love it your mileage may vary. They love it because it forces technologists to de-mystify things and makes them feel safer and more in control of risk real, stolen, borrowed, imagined. Clarity of action is not a bad thing in itself — but forcing professionals to do it every single day is garbage, self-defeating and demeaning.

    The doctor, the lawyer, the vet, the structural engineer, the pilot are not forced to breakdown their daily tasks into easy to understand terms for the layman. If they were people would stay sick, criminals walk free, pets die, bridges collapse and planes sit on the runway.

    Michael, I would greatly appreciate it if you could write about what, precisely, your definition of Agile is. It makes it very hard to understand these articles otherwise, despite sensing that they contain good insights. Sort of like staying on your side of the center line in fog…. IMAO, adopting an Agile development style opens you up to a lot of unnecessary risk. Agile has always suffered from a lack of hygiene factors.

    Anyone can do whatever they want and call it agile. Without some kind of hygiene factor, agile and scrum will naturally devolve to what this article describes. Now we have this scale ranging from 1 to 10, with this set of rules you must follow if you want to go from 3 to 4. It sure sounds like bad experiences made and mismanagement sufferd.

    Everyone matters, everyone wants to do a good job and achieve something. If not, take measures.. That includes showing respect for the knowledge and personalities. Everyone does have their strength and will contribute it. On the other end, I expect the PO and PL to watch ahead and talk to the team, so the architectural problems are reduced.

    As written, you can not take the chance to work only sprint-by-sprint. In the end, it takes the right environment, the right company, the right people, to get it done right. If it fails, it fails. The funny thing ist, the agile manifesto does put exactly this into focus. Argue about agile, about waterfall or whatever.

    They are not the problem. People and their inter actions are. And as I already said in my previous comment: This includes the process itself! His article deviates greatly from agile manifesto http: I read it fully on the grounds that you must know your enemy. I recommend everyone does the same. Thanks for this great blog post! But sorry, I have to disagree. Bad management is the norm, customers not knowing what they want is the norm. Scrum provides a very good way short feedback loops to crystallize what the users of the software really want.

    At least, this worked very well in my experience. For already a few years, I work as a freelancer — and many of my customers use Scrum. The team often added things they considered necessary e. However, I definitely can agree that many companies implement Scrum incorrectly. Already your impression that the Scrum master is in a hierarchy above the team is IMHO absolutely wrong and implies that the company you experienced this in made major mistakes. He had to clear impediments identified by the team.

    And these impediments were nearly always external usually missing interface specs from other teams. But then, I usually work in Germany. Maybe the work culture is different in your country. Or maybe I was just lucky? I can confirm, that it is a good way to organize in a better way. For me it works like it does for you, like the team members are the guys who make the call on what will be done, and what not. Only the team can say whether something will or can be done. You are cheating Scrum, and that reinforces the concept of this article.

    And if this adaption means to simply allocate e. Because this stuff still is in the product backlog, it still is described as a story, it still is broken down into tasks if needed, i. If there is enough mutual trust, it is clearly possible to reduce some overhead by not discussing certain things with the product owner in advance or even at all. But bad management is pretty much exactly what this is about. The article, IMHO, is not strictly about why agile and scrum without any outside factors are objectively bad, but how these models are enforced by management expectations, business needs and so on to ruin the company in the end.

    There can be bad management in multiple ways. Without wanting to elaborate more on this, I made the experience that Scrum helped to give everyone — including the managers — a better idea about the situation of the project. This often already helped to improve things. But then, nothing will help but a clear statement: You found an impediment! Any sane person would not do sprints after sprints after sprints.

    I think Agile was coined by people who never did any serious sport in their live. We covered that in No real power for the engineers? In basically my entire career the openness of management to engineer input regarding strategy and priorities has been proportional to how agile the project was. Giving the customer the chance to change directions by prioritizing differently usually elicits fruitful discussion and promotes better domain knowledge among engineers. Tasks are not imposed on, but claimed by developers, which gives me plenty of power over what I am going to work on and in what order.

    It acknowledges that changing requirements is inevitable and, ultimately, to be welcomed. It does so by delivering iterations early and often, by making the cost of change transparent and, again, by giving the client a way to reprioritize. How long and in what technical capacity one works on a given project has little to do with the methodology. Impediments are about identifying slackers? Which are all fine and necessary problems for the scrum master to solve. The increased transparency in who is doing what only becomes a problem when the project is managed incompetently or maliciously.

    The best engineers leave? Setting aside the weird tangent about measuring engineer capabilities on a one-dimensional scale with unclear units and drawing far-reaching conclusions from that, my experience has been quite the opposite. This is because it encourages the team to pick the tools they deem most appropriate for the task.

    Delivering early and often is something the better developers that I know are doing anyway. Claiming tasks also lets them use their abilities much more efficiently than having tasks imposed on them. But, apart from marketing pitches, I rarely see agile methods advanced as a dogma. These companies using crap are falling to pieces. I mean look at them, Salesforce, Google, amazon, spotify.

    These companies have been effected by Scrum in such a bad way. Which planet do you live on? Lol… Apple just reported some of the highest profits the world Has seen and their secret sauce being Agile. Forbes covered it all very well. Apple reported its financial results for the quarter ending December 27, Nearly all 12 map to cultivation of collaboration — check out Schneiders model and map it for yourself — nearly nothing falls into control and a little chunk in competence. Agile in one word IS people.

    schoolgirl first time having sex

    This, for example, is consistent with the agile manifesto: The management hears of a new trend. Agile is a lot like communism. Good Agile not necessarily fundamentalist Scrum can empower the team and everyone in it. We had a great working environment, with acceptable pressure. But you need to enforce especially to management! Anything more granular sub tasks, spikes, etc. There is no brutal transparency! First of all, there is no one-fits-all process or organization.

    The people, the project, the organization and the type of funding are all things that need to be considered, and you have to make an effort to improve each of these factors. The agile movement has quite enriched the toolbox of what is available, but if you grab the wrong management tool set or do not understand the limitations and prerequisites, everyone will suffer. And I can agree that agile is definitely not suitable for many types of projects and organizations.

    It is not very good for mass product development, and agile also has problems with contract work if the customer does not fully buy into it, which is the usual case. There are also people where a process complete clashes with their personality. What kind of process you personally like to work with also changes with age and experience.

    Just from reading the article I get the feeling that the author wants to or already has moved on from dreadful jobs like he describes, and he still seems hurt. He also does not seem to be happy with his current situation and might be unknowingly regretting some decisions he made. He is right about one thing, though: There are more fucked up companies and IT-jobs out there, and probably everyone in the field has seen bad things and even might not have escaped unharmed. However, if you are not satisfied with the jobs the market offers, get together with some friends and create the jobs you would like to see, including your own.

    There is so much out there to see and learn! I surmise your last team really needed agile to succeed. I think your team could have succeeded just as well without agile or scrum. I heard so much good thinks about agile it, the self improving and so on, how could it be so bad?. I wanted to get better product requirements, get more time for programming and less for writing documents. Get rid of time estimations for the next one and a half year, while knowing it is not worth of doing it and in the end everythink is different.

    The idea of weekly builds, that are are tested automatically should find errors much faster, and should also reduces the long testing periods. I work on many project at the same time and it slows down everything. Agile claims to improve it. But I have many old programmers 50 and older that are not that good but good enough. I made the experience that especially the old programmers are having even more problems to accept new processes.

    I also think good programming and engineering is more important in the first time than improving processes. What are you think about CleanCodeDeveloper http: It really like it, and it helped me a lot. If your software is so simple it can be checked by automatic testing then is something one person can do by itself. If not you still need human testing. Just stay away from Agile…. Thanks for this sensible post. My experiences with it so far have been truly dystopic.

    A blog post not mine on the same topic for your amusement: A rant by a disgruntled engineer at best. Plus there are always ways to avoid the issues he has management e. Maybe he needs better product managers around him. The standup is purely for the team. This is the point I want to highlight: The last environment in which you want your brain work getting done is in an environment of fear and granular control mechanisms.

    This is what our school system does wrong on a global scale and in many cases our employers as well. In most cases the work is done in capitalistic environments. This means that there are contracts between several parties which have to be fulfilled and everybody has to work in order to get money, because this is what has to be used to pay back the debt an individual has. In either cases the lack of being able to fulfil gets sanctioned in some way.

    You are not able to pay a certain amount of money at a certain point of time? To be most precise, I think that we, the software developers, still drew one of the best lots in the current times: We have still far more space for creativity and far more freedom than most other jobs. And yet we still seem to be more affected by doing less than ideal tasks or downright nonsense under a less than ideal or idiotic management. Thanks for bringing that up. As I see it, a sincere application of Agile principles is totally incompatible with capitalism. To my point of view, Agile manifesto just came up as another observation of the forever going fact that the most productive worker is the autonomous one, the one that has true power on its own work and the way he is doing it.