This move is about the complexity of programming computers. By removing the GUI dependency, you simplify the life of the developer, not to mention the savings you get from not having to design, program, localize, and test a GUI in various builds.--MicroSoft is free to repeat the mistake with Excel, though--localizing function names and keywords.

        That said, you're always going to have a GUI anyway (if you're sane), like forms for user account creation, but then you'd have to roll your own (fragmented), and since you're rolling your own, you are going to make mistakes or miss something at some level, and all of these mistakes are multiplied by the number of scripters, but at least you'd have the freedom to do so.

        Scripts are about removing the concept of applications (to some degree) and focus on services and functionality. This is a good thing, since you can now roll your own user interface. ;)

The purpose of in-code documentation is to bring awareness to the various situations surrounding certain parts of a program. Contracts, parameters, and protocols already have a place in documentation of its own.

        You simply need to realize that the human mind goes through a lot context changes when doing programming--it's not likely that anyone has the same mindset the next time they touch the same logic.

        Documentation in this sense is to write as much or as little required to bring awareness to assumptions, consequences, etc--it's not like writing the philosophy of the API, defining its parameters and protocols. You may have already written that, as it's the reference for both your own code, and for the users of the API, and other programmers.

BACK THE FUCK UP!

It's business, you're not supposed to care, but people won't stop you from feeling guilty.
Nobody cares about you getting stressed or losing sleep over some unsolved problem.
If they can make you feel bad without even trying, then they're not going to stop; it's working to their advantage.

You're there because they don't know the quirks of the "let's just ship it" piece of shit software we have to make work or troubleshoot at times.

Also, if they can't afford to pay what it costs to have an IT person, then why give them the advantage over other businesses by working for a substantially lower pay?

Of course, unless you're living at home with your parents, you can't really be that choosey.
That's also the fundamental flaw that keeps certain shitty businesses alive.

Working in IT, you're bound to come across pirated software from time to time.

a) When I find some pirated software or license misuses, I could for instance tell the client that "I'm not the police, but..."
I might also make them aware that there is this company that looks out for software vendors--the business software alliance, for instance.
b) When a client is aware that they're asking me to do something illegal, like ignoring license agreements etc, I tell them that I don't care what people do privately (nor do I assist them in that case either), but this is not the act of doing serious business--or tell them sorry, and explain that the company I work for won't allow me to do this, etc. If they still insist, they are a lost cause. You can only spend so much energy on these matters.

I'd prefer that more commercial business software would come with some activation mechanism. I've seen cases where clients have ordered one license, then gone ahead installing the software on most every PC, and when confronted about this, they've argued that only one of them uses it at the time--but the license agreement does not allow it to be installed on more than one PC.

You'll most often find that objectivity is the first thing to be sacrificed in business, so hang on to it, tight, or lose it.