The employer is paying the software developer for the work he's doing while he is there. If you want to have your work licensed, free lance, and then license your code. Do it without the tools and time and resources provided by an employer during working hours. There are lots of projects and people who do this. Specify it in the contracts you create.

I've been in all the different stages. Started out as a developer for companies, went to independent contractor, started my own business and hiring programmers who work under me. I am paying them for their time and their skills and their creative talent, and the result of their work. Why is a programmer more entitled to something than a welder? Because one is using creativity in their brain? Then how about an engineer designing bridges or planes or cars? Should they have everything they do be licensed also?

A company that wants to keep the best and most creative people offer good benefits, the right tools and appropriate salaries. Some may get stock or profit sharing. These are the rewards, payment, for the services rendered. Now, the one point I will make is that things you do on your own time (at home, after hours, on vacation) should most certainly belong to you. I remember a case where some big company said something the engineer did on their own time belonged to them, and I find that rather repugnant.

I have a 7 year old and 4 year old. Both of my children are allowed to play games on my phones and tablets. They both know not to make purchases, and not to install games without my permission, They never have even tried. The consequences they know about is that they get in trouble for purchasing things without permission. That's simple enough. Now, I also teach my children about money and rewards and such. But none of that is needed to get them not to purchase in app stuff. It could be that when they are older I run into another problem, with them willfully doing something w/o permission (teenagers can be known to do that). But that will not be because they don't know the full range of their consequences, it will be because they are teenagers and know everything. Of course the company is going to make it easy to pay them. Why wouldn't they? Why should they make it difficult rather than parent taking responsibility for their kids and knowing what games they are playing and what they are doing with it? Now it might be in their best interest to institute the password on every purchase for PR reasons, and they might lost the case because people don't want to take responsibility for their kids and would rather let other people ensure they are not doing things they are not supposed to and courts are filled with lots of like minded people, but in the end, it is the PARENTS account and they should not give a password to a child if they are not comfortable with the decisions that child is making. Its like when texting used to cost money and parents ended up with huge bills. The cell companies could have required a special password for every text too I suppose. Or parent can pay attention to their kids (Again, that is probably more teenage issue than paying for another 30 minutes of candy crush or what have you)

Have you ever listened to On The Media? They spend half their time bemoaning the government, pointing out the dire actions of the government. This actual piece is an interview with the Washington Post's foreign affairs blogger. The blogger examines the actual numbers behind the headlines. Try listening to it and then make your own judgement, or review Max Fisher's original blog that the program was based on.

The thing is, your password with KeepPass or what have you is up to your encryption level and password strength. The password you use on any given site is reliant on their password encryption. So if someone gets a hold of, say, LinkedIn's passwords and is able to decrypt your password there, they can hit every site with it and your email address. Getting access to your KeepPass file will grant them all access to all your accounts, but they are going to have a harder time getting the info out of it if you've done it correctly.

That's grossly overstated. I run a custom software company and as such, the number one thing that will benefit my company is happy customers coming back and referring me to others. As such, all I do is for the benefit of my clients.
Every one of my employees knows this and they know the easiest way to get in trouble here is to make us look bad to the client. That includes falling behind schedule, writing poor code, flippant remarks, not testing or a million other things that would get in trouble for with their own company. I've had this company for over 10 years and 80% of my business has been referral based because of this.
Now, there are some caveats to this. I am based in America (Florida) and I never outsource to another company. I have worked on projects with other teams not based locally (Asia) and to date have not had a great experience with them at all. But I'm not sure I can say it's because they don't care..or that they care less about the client than their own company. I chalk it up to less experience and, more importantly, less independent and original thought. They are more like cogs in a machine than engineers doing the design.

Thanks,
And just doing a quick look, I see under "4.1 Earnings Performance of the Bayer Group" I see (All numbers in billions)
Net sales: $36.5
Costs of goods: 17.975 (~49% of total sales)
Selling Expenses: 8.958 (~25% of total sales)
Research and Development: 2.932 (~8% of total sales)
...

Selling expenses are broken down later with:
Internal and External sales force: 4.141 (~ 11 % of total sales)
Advertising & Customer advice: 1.173 (~3 ^ of total sales)


So, selling expenses far exceeds R&D. But actual Advertising is little over 1/3 of R&D. But if you include the sales team with advertising, then that's just under twice R&D
Either way, R&D is still a good chunk

I've head this both ways, but never seen the proof either way. Can anyone show me where they are pulling the stats for "Drug companies spend more on XXX than YYY"

I think there's a rather large difference in creating graphics and creating a web site. If for no other reason, maintaining a web site in the future is MUCH easier if the underlying code is easily readable and standard compliant. Somethings may get tedious, but a decent context aware text editor up front (one that can generate closing tags, or check syntax as you type) can save you lots of time in the future. And if you know what you are doing and can type at a decent rate, the speed advantage of a WYSIWYG editor is pretty minor.

I use my second monitor for a host of things like: 1) Checking the output against the code when working on a web page 2) Looking up answers to a programming questions on the web. It's often helpful to see my code vs the posted code. 3) Stepping through a debugger with the application opened 4) Watching a log file while running an application 5) A VM, SSH or RDP session 6) Skype, Email or other communication window opened 7) Etc, etc, etc None of these "require" a second monitor (I could keep switching windows), but having the second monitor increases my productivity by at least 30%. (Technically, I actually have two machines, each with 2 monitors, with a shared keyboard and mouse with Synergy (http://synergy-foss.org), which gives me the ability to be do some heavy crunching on one machine while research (aka slashdot) on the other)

I'd be wary. You might find something that helps friends and family cope, but you could also find things which could cause a lot more hardships for them. People keeps things secret for reasons, and, without some type of "Data Will", they may want those things to remain secret forever. It no longer matters to the person who died, but there are dozens of things a person could keep secret that would cause grief to those around them. Is there anything on your computers that you wouldn't want your family to discover?