Prove it. I'm basing this assumption on the fact that most people want to ensure they have food on their plates. Not doing your job ensures the opposite.

Whether or not you want to do the best you can at your job has no bearing on how much influence one has over the project they work on. It's variables such as tight deadlines, insufficient requirements, feature creep, incompetent management, power outages, sickness, turnover, etc. that can completely derail developers. Come back and argue your point when you figure out a way for developers to completely control all of these variables.

Except you fail to consider the fact that many managers expect unrealistic deadlines from developers, leaving them no choice but to take the quick and easy way out. I'd say that most developers want to create the best code they can, but contraints on timelines, requirements, and feature creep often work against this ideal situation. Do you really want to be sued because of an incompetent manager?

If software development was an official engineering discipline that required P.Eng designation, then maybe this case would have more legs. Even then I'd be in disagreement. Otherwise, hell no, HELL NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! That is definitely one way to drive people away from a career in software development. This actually seems like a sneaky way for management to evade culpability if their product harms a customer/user.

This is the most insightful thing I've heard today so far. This is correct on so many levels.

All automated vehicles would have to have some sort of human override on them. Considering that fact, it would be near impossible to rid the road of all idiots, therefore, it would make sense for the automated car to have some sort of collision avoidance algorithm for rear enders that also doesn't put other drivers or pedestrians at risk. Especially since an automated car has several times more visibility than the average human and wouldn't have to react to something in the corner of its "eye".

Am I the only one that read this in the voice of Samuel L. Jackson?

If you have an Xbox 360, you should try some games like Limbo or The Dishwasher: Vampire Smile, you may find yourself unexpectedly impressed. Even the games that are like SMB such as SMB Crossover offer up a unique twist on a familiar platformer.

As a long time gamer I wholeheartedly agree. While we've seen an increase in graphics quality over time, we've seen very little movement in terms of innovative gameplay/controls/storylines/etc. Lately, it's only the indie games that I've seen that have implemented really original ideas. I love the idea of a console like this coming to market, it will give the big guys a run for their money.

As a general rule, I never use aspects of a programming language that I think are broken, antiquated or unfamiliar unless I become familiar with its use and I know exactly what I'm getting myself into with its usage. I say keep whatever features that already exist in a language for those that know how to use them. Don't fault the language for what some developers are incapable of doing right.

Programming languages are like tools, but too often we see people who feel the need to hammer in a screw.

Yes, but some of us prefer to have a choice of where this application bar is. Personally, I like having my application bars horizontal and not vertical. This is a major reason why I don't like Unity.

Nice, I'm gonna use this one, although most likely in a different context. Thanks for the awesome comeback!

One thing that really annoys me here and in other social situations is when people don't understand context or feign misunderstanding of context in a weak effort to appear intelligent, or make someone look dumb to appear intelligent themselves, which is even worse. Get off your intellectual high horse and quit pretending you don't know what country the GP was talking about.

This would definitely make a confusing enough drone to nonplus those terrorists enough to delay their actions for some time. I'm sure as hell would stare at this thing slack-jawed for a bit in the absence of any relevant context as to what I'm staring at.

Do you really believe I'm entirely wrong? Sorry, you're not even worth a third sentence.