My sentiments exactly.

Going back to the Ribbon, it was a complete break from how things used to work. I will grant that it's probably a better method for people first learning how to use the software. It does make a certian amount of sense from that perspective.
My issue with it was it became the One True Interface. If you wanted the new improvements or needed reliable file file format compatibility (as the compatibility pack wasn't perfect) - or just bought a new PC from a shop - you were lumbered with the Ribbon. There was no (Microsoft produced) method of reverting back to classic menus and icons. A nice third-party solution did exist, that I used for a short while.

From a personal point fo view, I did adjust to the Ribbon. It took a while, but I am now pretty good at using it. I can work my way around it as natively as I could the old menus.

But here's the thing, I still prefer the classic interface. This isn't a technical limitation I have. It's not a lack of desire to learn something new. From an preference and aesthetic viewpoint, I just don't like it. I can (and do) use the RIbbon. I'd just rather not. Even now.

And that's where mandated UI changes really piss me off. It's not a "new default". It's a whole new interface, whether you like it or not. If your preference is for heirarchical menus, or power user options, or vertical layout (or whatever non-standard layout you favour) you are out of luck. Your opinion does not count. "We created this shiney new perfect UI, this is all you get with the newer releases." Which really sucks when using older versions is not an option for whatever reasons.

One size does not fit all. Options are nice.

The problem with ths fallacy, though, is that it is reinformed by the retail side of it. Hardback are pricey, paperbacks are cheaper. Hardback prices still stay at the same price even after teh paperback comes out, therefore hardbacks cost more. Therefore printing is a key factor in cost.

The conclusion may be false, but it is logical given the perception of the facts at hand.

There is also the matter of value.

Personally, I don't mind paying close to paperback prices for an ebook. Hardback prices, on the other hand, make me want something persistent. Maybe if the file was DRM-free. Maybe.
But hardback pricing for less functionality than a paperback? It's just not worth it.

Very few titles are dubbed well.

This isn't entirely true, certainly not anymore. And I say this as a subtitle fan. I've seen enough clips, and entire episodes (granted, of stuff I saw subbed first...) and the dubbing these days is actually pretty damned good. The quality is improving over time. And that can only be a good thing. Should I ever want to intruduce a non-subtitle watcher to a new show, I can do it without my ears bleeding. ;-)

I think it mainly comes down to personal preference.
My interest in anime (and other Japanese shows) has contributed to (and is increased by) my interest in Japanese language and culture. So my preference remains to the original langue version. Obivously manga and novels I have to read in English, owing to my lack of real Japanese skill. But subtitles means I can enjoy the original performance, in its original langue, with original inflections, yet still understand what is going on.
And that is the same regardless of the quality of the dubbing. A good dub does, however, mean I can rewatch something (or go sub-free when my eyes are tired) and actually enjoy the overall show.

Maybe if dubs had been this good back in the 1990s my preferences would be different. It's certainly possible, and would explain why more people seem to like the dubs these days. And I don't have a problem with that, as long as the discs continue to have the subs on.

As long as they're not removing actual search results, I don't see too much of a probem with this. As someone who works in IT Support it's really bloody annoying when Googling a software name without autocomplete "suggesting" warez, serials, cracks,. keygens, etc.
utocpletely can be really useful to see if other people have encountered the same issue. But when the top tier of auto-suggetions are to do with acquiring pirate copies of software I already have ut need to fix... not useful. And it's worse if the terms I want to use include serial, CD, license, etc. As these always get the auto-complete suggestions of crack, keygen, etc.

It sounds like the submissions didn't agree with the minister's pre-determined outcome .. just keep trying until you get what you want to hear.

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. It's the way a lot of people are, it's certainly a behaviour I see a lot in my cutsomer-facing role. People told "no" try rephrasing the quaestion or restating their side of the reasoning several times then then ask my boss, get their boss to ask me and ultimately get their boss to ask my boss. (And they then look genuinely surprised when my boss tells them exactly what I already told them...)
In very very few cases does the answer change. But people seem to be conditioned that when they ask a question there is only one "true" answer that will eventually come out.

And I'm certain that managers and politicians believe the same thing. They know what they want to hear, so that they can present it on to others. And they'll keep going until they have the stats they want.

Unfortunately, you're dead right. One of the DRM advocates on the BBC Blogs comment thread comes over very much as being afraid that caving to the "FOSS preachers" will result in the withdrawal of content from the content providers.

Or, to put it another way, is willing to put up with a reduction in freedom as long as all his (her?) favourite programs are available for viewing.
And then in the same paragraph, will accuse FOSS advocates of being "selfish".

Which is fine and understandable. Annoying at times, but fine and understandable. What isn't fine, however, is how often they then call asking for support after dismissing the error message.
It's when people say "The program crashed and there was an error message, so I dismissed it and restarted. What went wrong?" And they have no idea what was in the error message, and don't seem to get that they sorta help me troubleshoot what the problem might have been.

On the flip-side, I've known some users who will actually pass on the error message. Whether by email, screenshot, post-in-note or even just leaving it on the screen and asking if I could have a look.
They may not be interested in how it works or what actually went wrong, but at least they realise that those annoying little messages might actually help a techie get them up and working faster.

Most of the crap wouldn't be so bad, only most ad-supported pages block on the main content until the adverts are loaded. And, personally, if it takes longer to load the ads than the content then I quickly read the content, ignore the ads more than ever, and mentally blacklist the site for a while.

This can be annoying in and of itself but it becomes worse if you're on a bad connection or if, perish the thought, the ad-server slows down.
I've had these before. In one case, the link was s slow somewhere on the chain that it took a couple of minutes to get as far as the logon page for one site so I could access the ad-free version.

And then we have the sites which put an advert in before the content, or who split the articles into multiple (ad-supported) pages.

If the companies really want to protect their revenue stream then they need to make sure that aforementioned stream (the adverts) doesn't get seen as "crap" by readers. Relevance and not slowing the site to a crawl would help. Yes, some of us out here will dislike advertising on principle, but it will help in the public view if the adverts don't make it hard to get to the content that people go there for in the first place. Making reading the articles feel like effort really isn't a good buiness plan, surely?

This is my main issue with the Ribbon. Not the existance of the Ribbon itself, but that it is the only interface available in Office 2007. And even worse, the only plugins to restore the old-style menus and toolbars are third-party.

I can see that they wanted to make an interface that's meant to be more intuitive to new users. I can even see how it may well accomplish that - I've heard anecdotal evidence on both sides.
What really bugs me is that for those of us who have years or experience using the more traditional-looking interface and can skim the menus quickly, or for those people who learn one way of doing things and get completely flummoxed by a change in interface, Microsoft have decreed no official way of working the way you're used to. Not even an official Microsoft plugin.

The problem in that case, though, is that the UK release - being a part of the European release - cannot (or at least often is not) be released until all the other European languages are done. Even though the game's already been translated to (or released in) English.

When it's a game you've been waiting for since before even the American (or Japanese) release, it just feels like a massive insult. But then they wonder why people import or flat out download the games. Once it's in English, English-speaking gamers are ready to play it.
If there was a confirmed date it would proably be better. But when the game's been out Stateside for months before there's even a confirmed UK/European release date, no wonder people lose patience.

The worst thing about this lack is that it would help in the case of corporate environments, which Microsoft seem so keen on. Yet they still don't include it.
(OK, from the sounds of it Vista's UAC acts similarly - only without the Grace Period which allows a string of admin tasks to be done without having to authorise every single action.)

Currently the annoying thing about tech-support is when a user needs something doing which is, in and of itself, only about a 2-minute task. But it then requires either logging off and back in as an admin, or promoting their accounts and re-logging in for when admin-level user-side things need doing.
So a showstopping issue with a quick-fix often ends up taking far too long because Windows (XP) doesn't play well with certain software - even using RunAs.