http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Asplode

A user can delete a file if he has write (W) permissions on the file's directory.

Write perms on a file only mean that you can modify the file.

It's a mixed bag, i.e., a blessing and a curse.

I once inherited 10,000 lines of C source running under SCO Xenix (circa 1990) with exactly two comments, viz "Watch out, this part's tricky," and "Just in case." The code featured one- and two-letter variables, heavy variable reuse, and, yes, GOTOs. The only two parts that were difficult were the custom curses and termio "modules".

Then there was the stuff written for DOS that had uneven numerical/ASCII conversions.

Fortunately, my boss understood the problem and gave me time to figure out, fix, and document the source. It was maddening at times, but at the end of that tunnel, I'd learned a lot about several topics that I don't think I could have figured out without having to implement it myself.

After fixing the bugs, the next task was to implement a new feature. I was very glad I'd taken the time to document everything before adding to the monolith.

Then my boss gave me 30 days off to make up for the extra hours I'd worked without compensation. He asked that I check voicemail daily and remain available. Meanwhile, they fired my old boss and neglected to tell me. On the day I returned, my new boss stopped me before I'd even reached my desk to tell me that he was my new boss, and that they'd be taking the unauthorized vacation out of my paychecks. I stood there, wondering what it was that held me there, and found nothing. I said, "You know what? I quit." I turned to leave, and the new guy grabbed me and said, "But you're the only one who knows how this thing works, now!"

I replied, "Exactly," and left. I did not look back. Armed with my recently acquired expertise, I found a job paying exactly twice the salary I had. A month later I heard that they had re-enlisted the contractor who'd written the crappy code. He charged them $1000/day to rewrite my revisions back into his cryptic style in 100 days, then another $100K to re-implement the new features I'd put in.

The supreme irony is that I'd been hired because they didn't want to shell out for his $50K bid to add the features they wanted. My original boss also wanted FTEs to provide continuity.

(shrug) A year later the CIO was convicted for an elaborate price fixing scheme, but received a lenient sentence because the scam relied on that same contractor's code--which was deemed unreadable, making the criminal intent difficult to prove.

Yes, and the expenses for operation of these facilities were almost certainly paid by the artist.

Unlike employment agreements in the US, recording artists and record companies use a legally binding contract. Apparently this is different in the UK and elsewhere, e.g., there is an explicit and free-standing contract between each employee and the employer.

I think this argument and the other I've seen as yet regarding the RIAA suits are both irrelevant. There isn't any suit as of yet in this case, just a police raid. I don't think it'll stand, even though I would dearly love to see a sovereign government file suit against a multinational corporation. Or heck, Mexico could probably revoke whatever agreement it has for Sony Music to operate/distribute/etc in Mexico.

Sorry for my blind attack earlier. By 'simple,' I meant that you keep harping on the same thing. We get it, i.e., you look down on those with poor credit scores. I have since been shown that 'simple' is British parlance which indicates a lack of intelligence.

The problem with your assertion above is that you seem to be implying that the opposite is also true, e.g., the appearance of not having managed one's finances correctly is a good indicator that one is not responsible.

Further, it is possible to manipulate one's credit records so as to suggest the appearance of responsibility.

To wit, the most basic problem with record keeping is accuracy, both in content and in retrieval, as I'm sure you know very well. I'm saying that neither of these problems is addressed in the US. In the case of consumer credit records, the responsibility has been entirely pushed off onto the consumer--including the responsibility of a response. The credit bureaus are not legally required to acknowledge, let alone act on your requests for correction.

When it comes to criminal and many types of civil records, there is no clear avenue for correction, and it inevitably costs money and time. Even after a ruling has been made which demands correction, there is no punitive remedy for state agencies which continue to release inaccurate information.

If only it were that simple.

You seem to be rather simple, come to think of it.

It's not nearly as common, but arrest records and other information in criminal databases is much more damaging than credit information, and there are no laws covering your access to verify and/or correct it. Further, potential employers are not bound by law to tell you about what their background check found out about you.

I remember exactly the same argument when high-dollar MP3 players started showing up. Whatever the market will bear.

Dang! Why is it that I only hear about these bitchen sites after they've been shut down?