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.
... my complaint was that the capital in capital gains are usually on something 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.
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.
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 look, my favourite TV show is on. Let's see, comfortably numb, or rage against the machine?
Each seems equally effective from this vista.
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
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.
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.
If the aborigine drafted an IQ test, all of Western civilization would presumably flunk it. -- Stanley Garn