Try Diablo 3.

The problem is that it's near impossible to say with certainty whether those issues created by that developer were unavoidable as part of doing the job. Many times bugs are the fallout from dysfunctions either in the team (poor requirements, planning) or in the technology (buggy, poorly-implemented abstractions that the developer is forced to build on top of). Of course it's reasonable to blame it all on the incompetence of the developer, but in some cases it genuinely isn't his fault despite his name being attached to the bug.

To be fair, a month after 9/11 who wasn't afraid of losing their job? Management could ask for anything back then.

Two minimum wage earners in the same household? By definition one of those workers is working just to pay minimum wage for childcare. Two income households only makes sense if both adults are making more than minimum wage.

I'd hardly call referencing his name in the liner notes of one of the most popular albums of the 90s "marketing". There are some products that are so good that they need no marketing to sell.

In China, only old people tell small animal from paper bag.

I'm gonna pop some books. Got 20 dollars in my pocket. I'm I'm hunting, looking for a COM book.

This is fucking awesome!

No, he's saying that we shouldn't be rooting for companies to fail. What does the world gain from a company like RIM failing to produce great, new products? BB may be obsolete tech, but I'm sure somewhere along the line someone could have done something to diversify RIM's portfolio to keep that company afloat.

At worst, he becomes this generation's Rupert Murdoch.

We the people lost, too: millions in taxpayer dollars for this political sideshow. Probably more millions if there actually is rioting. Not to mention how much money was indirectly wasted by advertising dollars to pay for news coverage of this. But then, I guess it's better than having to report actual news.

Umm 1 can of Mt. Dew is 170 calories. http://www.livestrong.com/thedailyplate/nutrition-calories/food/generic/mountain-dew/. Still not great but 700 is a bit off.

There is no need for evidence, it's pretty obvious that if you tell your employees who live 1,000 miles away to either come into the office or quit, a good number of those will quit.

To the contrary, what is the evidence that remote employees perform worse than local? Why do we need more office space and people commuting generating pollution and congestion on our roads?

What industry do you work in and what occupation? I'm sure certain fields are more workable remote than others.

The problem with having it be a "justifiable accommodation for an especially good performer" is that everyone thinks that they are good performers and everyone will think they deserve it. It's either all or nothing.

It's just a way to lay people off without having to pay severance.

Get her one.

I think if you re-read his post you'll find he's actually on your side, numbskull.