I take it you are teaching then? In my university days I had an eye opening experience across two courses. The first course we had an prof who would give us an assignment and award a C to work that did the strictest literal thing asked for, this prof asked us to always think about over delivering, optimizing, adding useful features, etc. The second course we had a different prof. On the first assignment I actually forgot about it until the day it was due, so I rush coded the bare strict literal requirements given to us. I got 98/100 A. I was confused, adding to the situation most of my classmates (who had also been in the previous course with me) were receiving D's and F's... and they were pissed. Turned out different profs wanted different things, the second prof was a true believer that we code to the requirements literally, period. The first not so much, he liked seeing extra effort. I am just sharing this in reply to your post, as it may be that your students already had a prof like my second one?

I defy you to provide one motivation which does not align with my statement.

No. People who want non-anonymous voting in any arena are always those who seeks to control the outcome. If you cannot handle the critics and the trolls then do not put yourself out there for them to come at you... this is not complicated stuff.

Agree completey, and I will add that if x,y,z,etc bother you I highly doubt the other devs on the team will care if you refactor the 'x' into 'theNewFooToInsert'. Since the linq statement is fully enclosed the refactor can be done 100% using the tools built into VS or ReSharper... making it arbitrarily easy to do.

The entire point of

var order = GetOrder(orderId);

is to be able to change the return type of your method, without having to track back through all the usages of that method and update all of that code as well. That said this is the one usage of var where I get a little uncomfortable for the same reasons you said. Generally speaking code using var as opposed to the actual type is easier to work on, less touch points while refactoring.

You should visit the USAF Museum in Dayton Ohio, last time I was there they had a full size replica of the Wright Flyer on display.

Concur.

jschell wrote:

I am hoping that we are having a communication failure rather than what I think you are saying.

No idea because I don't know what you're thinking.

jschell wrote:

Governments do not run gas/electric/water in the US. In some case it is entirely run by businesses (natural gas) and in others there are quasi-independent entities but ones that are entirely self sufficient and distinct from the government under which they exist (water.)

The point was really on the imperfection of the analogy, federal versus state, commodity delivery versus data service/pipe. The expectation two things which are completely not the same to work/be run the same way is possibly unfounded.

jschell wrote:

The industries do not rely on funding (excluding subsidies that many businesses get) and certainly do not rely on government employees to run.

I promise I am not trying to be a smart ass, but you did contradict yourself within the same sentence. I think it is fair to say in the event of subsidized broadband access it could happen.

jschell wrote:

Of the existing monopolies gas/electric/water, electric probably is subsided the most. The internet is subsided the least. Most likely the most significant subsidy for the internet is that governments pay for their service as well.

Exactly. My thoughts here are what happens when the FCC makes it a public utility. Every other utility has local/state/federal programs to help people pay their bills, what would make internet utility bills so special that people should not get subsidies for them? Or will the FCC not treat it like the other utilities? Which then why classify it that way?!? Does not compute. This is important to understand because as I tried to impress earlier it is not like other utilties. Off topic: As I just typed the above it hit me that this is an excellent argument against metered internet access, which is another really shady thing the carriers are pushing. Metering access basically changes it from a service into a commodity, which would mean it should be regulated that way.

jschell wrote:

there is little chance that the US would need to "bail out" an ISP

/dumb and dumber - So you're saying there is a chance!

Makes sense. So back then to the original point of all this - Title II. Why classify internet as a public utility? It is not needed for fundamental physical needs the way electric/gas/water are. It doesn't make sense to me, honestly it reeks of abuse of discretion (not that the feds ever do that). If internet is a public utility does that not mean that it is a basic human right to have access in your house?

jschell wrote:

A shutdown of the government would have zero impact on the industry. And regulation of those is by the municipalities (or perhaps state) not the federal government.

FCC is the federal government. This is a great point to draw out. The analogies to other utilities are all imperfect for the reasons you state. Think about it there are vast human differences as well. If you shut off a houses electric there is a real human cost there, spoiled food, damaged electronics, possibly medical emergencies. Shutting off a houses internet - not so much.

jschell wrote:

So what would you point be there in terms of utilities?

Regulations -> subsidies -> appropriations. If the appropriations dry up (which does happen for various political reasons) what is the impact? It is not a point as much as an area of unknown I want to explore. I think trying to dismiss these potential knock-on effects is short sighted.

jschell wrote:

Many businesses blame the government for their actual or marketing failures. Regardless of whether they are regulated or not.

It's not about assigning blame. It's about creating a legal framework which could potentially legally allow the providers to extort (of course extort would not be their word) money from the public. Or I should say figuring out how regs if any that do come out do not allow for this type of scenario. Think about it... a decade or two from now we the tax payers could end up bailing out the ISP's.

Thanks for the info dense reply. I have a million things come to mind, so try to forgive. So why isn't not regulating on the table? Feels like a false dilema to me. What is wrong with looking the carriers pushing to get regulations in place and telling them no? I strongly suspect this is a ploy for them to get rules laid out so they can then proceed to work around them. If you give them no rules... does the status quo not hold? Of course one possible answer might be that a lack of a way forward on these issues may itself stifle innovation. Has that been discussed already?

A) If there is a misunderstanding on my part it is not with regard to government. I can fully accept that I lack knowledge around how utilities work. B) Unless you know some technicians who work for free then explain how we can guarantee the utilities have funding for said maintenance. Remember that whole government shutdown thing? It is my understanding that in many cases governments subsidize utilities. My cynical side would not put it past the carries to start pointing their fingers at congress saying "we cant fix it because we don't have the money". Which requires what? Funding - from congress. It takes a couple steps to get there I know. I want to be educated here, but calling names is only going to dilute your own argument.

I like the premise of all traffic being treated equally. But I fear having the feds regulate ISP's will stifle innovation... and probably worse things I have not thought of yet. For example I am highly looking forward to more widespread roll out of fiber to the house networks. What happens to those efforts? Imagine a situation where a Level 3 type provider is down and we have to wait on congress to appropriate funding to fix the issue! /cringe Comcast/Time Warner/AT&T/Verizon/etc are worse actors than the feds (imo). These companies have a track record resembling the trail of tears. However we at least have the option of taking our business elsewhere... well depends on where you live I suppose. So they're bad, but largely accountable. The feds are rarely if ever held accountable for anything. Will we continue to have options (aka power to hold providers accountable) if internet becomes a utility? I cannot remember ever having multiple choices for who I get water/gas/electric from at any residence I have had. Guess I am torn, I am interested in compelling arguments for/against this.

Google is quite adept in that area.

I have always viewed it with a get what you paid for attitude. If you want the best hardware buy Apple gear. If you care more about getting the best software you buy MS "gear".

The enterprise story just isn't quite there (still) for WinRT in my opinion. Until MS gives us a way to manage/curate a corporate "app store" for WinRT apps I see no reason to use WinRT for internal development over WPF. If you were developing for external audiences WinRT would be a no brainer.

Not liking what I say doesn't mean it is trolling. Not giving you answers isn't a cop out. I was trying to bow out of this conversation, but insinuations of trolling should not be ignored. I saw Alaric_ jumping in as well and primarily I am concerned that he and I do not start to triangulate on you. I never said nor implied nor insinuated you are irresponsible go reread. Expecting me to provide you detailed answers as to how you should have handled a difficult situation long since passed is not realistic nor fair to me. Here is what you need to digest. The answers to your questions do not matter. Asking them and considering he possibilities is where the growth lies. A lot of these kinds of things do not have a right answer now or then - how could I give you one? If you want to have a philosophical conversation I can indulge. But I wont go for further insinuations.

Ah... see I have helped you down the road to recovery, now you have moved on from denial to anger. I cannot give you the answers you need to find them on your own.

I cannot blame a victim in a situation where there is none. You made a choice, and now to cope with your choices and the damage they caused you are trying to convince others that doing something like what you did is justified somehow. The parallels to hazing psychology are striking. Please try to bear in mind I have done the same, I am not judging you. You have rights. You can say no. Nobody forced you or took advantage of you. This is self inflicted damage my friend. You speak of responsibility while simultaneously refusing to accept it where it matters most. The most important question to ask is "What could I have done differently?". I suggest reading around emotional intelligence. FWIW I live in a right to work state as well - in the Midwest, and I like the south... good bourbon for one. I will move, change jobs, leave the country, etc before I ever accept unionization - I would fight it first of course. Unlike southerners those of us in the Midwest have witnessed first hand the undesirable effects unions have on an industry/economy. My home city is almost dead at this point and unions played a big role in that. If you wont take my word take the word of the voters of Michigan who just turned that state into a right to work state. A much better and free market solution to the wage/working conditions issue is to end the abuse of H1-B and similar programs. Lawsuits are a cost of doing business. If you cannot deal with being sued you should not be in business in the US. I am not gonna defend this; just stating reality. You offer up that they fired the sales guy anyway as some sort of defense. I could argue that the more responsible approach is to manage the situation, NOT take actions that end up with the company losing two valuable employees. Maybe if thing were managed properly you would both still be working there happily to this day, but we will never know. Having the character to tell people when they are wrong/screwed up is valuable and factors into your net worth.

That is ridiculous. See Alaric_ above. If you chose to confer more to a relationship than what actually exists that is on you. Employers/clients do not own you. The only exception to my next statements are scenarios where the developers were given equity - in which case they are enriching themselves with extra effort. The correct course of action would have been for you to tell them no, and force the sales person to go make a mea culpa - I mean as you said you were the only one who could deliver it; what were they going to do fire you? Sales people will take a mile if you give an inch, it happens all the time regardless if you are in consulting or FTE. It is completely appropriate for you to help educate your sales people on acceptable conduct on their part as well. You know why they have contracts in writing - because the things in writing are the easiest things to change... changes to contracts happens constantly all day everyday. Changing a contract is not a big deal. This mind set around working insane hours is I think analogous to the same mind set you see in hazing rituals. "I went through it so you should too", basically complete garbage logically. I have been on death marches - it shouldn't be something people go through. IT wages haven't gone up in 15 years and people are running around acting like employers did them a favor by hiring them...