This was floated on this past Sunday's TWiT. Leo Laporte aped Jonathan Schwartz saying, "Oh, and then there are these patents -- the engineers say they were really more of a joke than actual claims, but -- there's at least a few billion in there for settlement money, so after you pay the lawyers, you should clear a few milliion."

The new meaning of justice is revealed. It's "revenge," aka "closure."

This is the old "protecting our way of life" meme. It is not an inclusive use of "our." It is the government saying, "We and our cronies prefer it this way."

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. ~the Declaration of Independence

Agreed. The problem is with the term "first to market." Its meaning relies on perspective. What is the market? Retail space on Best Buy shelves? Direct marketing via late night television ads and browser pop-ups?

I remember a story about a guy who thought of dunking banana slices in chocolate and mixing them with banana flavoured ice cream. He showed this to some food company, which turned him down and then marketed it themselves. Many other examples abound. Maybe Robert Kearn's story (he patented his intermittent windscreen wiper design before approaching Ford, then Chrysler) is a better context for the question: Who was first to market? The inventor who tried to market to the corporation, or the corporation that stole the idea and marketed it to genpop?

Even if the good guys win -- whomever the good guys are, for you, in this squabble -- regulatory agencies in these United States are crack whores, fellating the same corporations that the legislature has put in charge. The rules are for show. Gives a whole new meaning to money talks, bullshit walks when the regulations are widely known to be unenforced, even unenforceable.

That, by the way, is the definition of corruption, i.e., the opposite of integrity. Integrity is much more than some soporific ideal about what is right. It's about strength, and durability. What is the integrity of the chair you're sitting in right now?

Given that the x axis represents time and the y axis represents knowledge and/or skill ... The curve is steep when one must get knowledge/skill to a high level in a short amount of time. Your point is well taken, though; I've used this description many times in the past without realizing that some really do spend more time mastering a tool. My vi learning curve looked more like a staircase. I'd dig in and figure out how to do whatever I needed next (the rise), then rely on that for as long as I could (the run).

Meh. Big, expensive, proprietary in-house solutions are rarely the best IMHO. The USAF could have made a deal with Sony.

Naked short selling is most certainly not illegal -- when such trades are executed by a market maker, and/or when the broker/trader believes that shares will be available. A temporary SEC order remains in place, originally designed to restrict trade on certain "systemically important" firms, and has since been expanded to cover all firms.

BTW, speeding is also illegal, and practiced as a normal method of driving by most licensed drivers. Given the difficulty in proving naked short selling, I doubt that the practice has decreased significantly, any more than criminalizing bookmaking has impacted the illegal gambling industry.

I'll grant that shares in a company are legally tangible.

It may have been at one time. Have a look at the current way the stocks/bonds/commodities markets have been working since the mid-90s. Look into "naked short selling" for the most extreme example.

Much of the global financial system is based on agreements/promises/obligations, not tangibles. That's how it all fell apart last year: One firm announced that it was not going to be able to deliver on its agreements, and it happened to be the most popular firm for that sort of agreement.

The problem wasn't that he couldn't/wouldn't pay his taxes. He paid his taxes with the money he had saved for retirement. The way I've read the source documents, he did this more than once.

This is an interesting discussion, but it keeps reducing to the same conclusion: Property owners run the show, and the more property you own (or can prove that you own, or sue for ownership, &c), the better things go for you, given that you invest in political power. Or just drop a member of congress a few thousand when s/he is desperate to get re-elected. That is, good fortune has absolutely nothing to do with merit, unless you define merit as bribing everyone in charge.

Stack's problem: He thought that doing what he saw as quality work for customers and saving some portion of what he was paid. Essentially, US (and other) firms realize that they must have computing, but they remain unwilling to pay human beings to design/architect/implement/develop/maintain/operate the systems.

Better said, the firms are unwilling to let the market regulate itself in this matter.

The evidence may be anecdotal, but it's rampant. The vast majority of phone calls I get are from recruiting boiler rooms (seriously, I can hear other conversations from the same room), asking me to do essentially the same: abandon whatever I've got going on, move to another state for hourly contract money at or below what I'm currently making, no relocation, no expenses covered.

... and the "temp to perm," "temp to hire," "contract to hire" is repeated like the reading of Miranda rights.

I'm saying that the "permanent employment" cookie is dangled like it's a treat, a prize, something worth selling myself out for. But that is precisely how and why this opportunity has arisen. Someone else had "permanent employment," but then management decided--through some undisclosed analysis--that that person/those people had to go. Then they found out that they needed this work function, therefore I'm getting a phone call from someone who clearly doesn't understand the job requirements, let alone the fact that they, too, are the victims of a "contract-to-hire" scam.

I realize that I could pay for the travel, the lodging, the food, etc., up front, and then claim the expenses against my income tax, but ...

Like everybody else, I've got no capital to invest -- at zero interest with the IRS -- and the banks still aren't loaning money for this sort of venture. Even then, even with crazy low interest rates, I lose money because I pay interest on the loan, but recoup only the capital from the IRS. Further, I've also made myself an attractive target for audit, or the outright levy of penalties, to be proven later--or never.

It took someone who's been around long enough to see the semi-cyclical nature of this situation. Everyone seems to be referencing the current crisis, but this happens whenever the economic outlook is bleak. IT is [ still !! ] considered to be overhead and is the first area for cutbacks.

Apparently the Congress is [ still !! ] listening to the Old World. Gee, when has the government been so profoundly disconnected to the people?

Oh, yeah ... like 240, 250 years ago. Bloody revolution. Pirates pressed into service as contractors, except that when the US didn't need their services, they kept ... blowing $#!+ up.

Huh.

Oh look, my favourite TV show is on. Let's see, comfortably numb, or rage against the machine?

Each seems equally effective from this vista.

Depends on what the brake is connected to. The parking brake with the handle under the dash activates only one of the front brakes, so pulling it at 70MPH, you'd be going in circles.

Careful application and release of this type of brake is how one executes the Hillbilly U-Turn .

Toyota has probably connected the lever to both rear brakes ... via copper wire to the Cabin Center Console Ethernet Switch, then fiber to each of the Current Candidates For Braking Interface Modules.

Yes, of course! The new guy, straight from school, irked about having to work late and on weekends, is the very model of a modern major code reviewer. How could I have missed this?

Your use of the derisive "coders" suggests that you, too, might have an axe to grind. Pray fete us with more of your nuggets of wisdom.

Could it be that the anonymous poster's colleagues aren't simply coding? What is coding, anyway? Is it simply translating some superior's proven-correct pseudocode into some pedestrian HLL just to the point of correct compilation, then handing it off to someone else for linking? Or could this neophyte have used a term which means many things to many people?

Congratulations on your juggling and the high standards (and taxation on your physical and mental selves, hat trick!) to which you are held. Would that all of us could wear your mantle, but, clearly, you are the only one who can do so. Forge on, and please, file more quality reports for our continued edification!

There simply aren't enough details to analyse the whelp's complaint. Is the software being written for a customer, or for internal use? Is it new development, enhancement of an existing suite, or is it maintenance? On which platforms does the software run? What's the environment like? Compensation?

Maybe--and I'm just spitballing, here--maybe the "grunt work" to which the novice refers is part of the training required to fully understand what's going on. Or--and I can't warrant this, as it's just now come to me--maybe the kid isn't even a developer and doesn't understand all of the intricacies (or unique work arrangements, i.e., working on projects while not in office) involved.

Mayhap you can spare a few of your own cycles to address the pup's concerns. How is s/he to deal with such an environment, populated with layabouts and ne'er-do-wells, ignorant to the economic (and other serious global) crises and ethical pressures which are clearly vexing the eager abecedarian?

Kid, if you're reading this, dig in a little deeper, and talk to your boss (not Slashdot) about your concerns. And read yourself some Fred Brooks (spoiler: There is no Man Month). Man up, buckle down and pay attention instead of looking for things to criticise because--as aurispector so ably points out--you don't work in a vacuum.