Heh heh. Nice one, cheeky bugger.

Or that ridiculous 2,500 year old rule still applied to medicine today: first, do no harm.

I helped a friend with Win 8 printing problems, and I was initially lost. It took me 5 times longer to resolve their problem than if they had Win 7. (Or Vista. Or XP. Or 2000.)

I plan to use Win 7 until it's EOL. I would like to say I'll dump Microsoft and move to another OS, but the truth is I use a lot of Windows software and will therefore be lumped with Microsoft operating systems for many years to come. For this reason, I resent Microsoft and their atrocious UI decisions of the past few years.

Microsoft is obviously feeling the heat from Apple, but in trying to force a touch UI upon everyone (even those with non-touch devices) they are also annoying a heck of a lot of other people. Some of those may even think: if I'll need to re-learn the interface, I may as well take the opportunity and move to another OS. (Ironically, most likely Apple.)

I hope Microsoft does hemorrhage customers, and learn how to refine their UI without drastically impacting on people's productivity. And with all the flip-flopping Microsoft has done over the past decade, I wouldn't be surprised if they do.

I presume what AC meant was that OP should learn how to write proper.

especially annoying when the software is distributed as download so there is no real answer as to why there is a 50-100% markup.

Some software companies claim it's due to internationalisation expenses (making an EN/AU version) which I think is fair - I imagine teams of university academics, linguists and anthropologists labouring over translating the EN/US XML file into EN/AU.

I suspect the answer lies somewhere in between.

What about India -- under threat of allowing foreign drugs to be replicated without paying patents -- slashing the price they'll pay for said pharmaceuticals?
Surely this is an example of the market not working? (The final price is not the result of supply intersecting demand.)

Of course, it's very important that the pharmaceutical companies remain profitable so they can continue their R&D.
Though ... I don't think there's any imminent cause for concern

Disgusting, but very innovative way to generate a reality-distortion field around their true customer service.

sticking to those 2 sets of four words will ALWAYS be to your advantage and not sticking to them is NEVER to your advantage.

:-(

Use that while you can.

In NSW, the right to silence was dealt a blow similar to laws they have in the UK.

In a nutshell, the new law "encourages" those arrested to open their hearts to the police, and yap away.
Because anything not offered to the police can potentially subsequently be deemed inadmissible in your trial.

This was opposed by civil rights groups and even the LEGAL PROFESSION ... but objections fell on deaf ears.

No, you're wrong. *Accountants* consider security to be a cost centre.

If we extend your analogy, then entire companies are profit centres, including the cleaners. (Because if the place was a mess with rats everywhere, then business couldn't be conducted.)

The decision to classify something as a Cost Centre or Profit Centre is an accounting one.
I mean, sheesh

"A cost centre is part of an organization that does not produce direct profit"

(emphasis added)

So we need more regulation to protect the profit of giant corporation? When they fly their plane over my house my property lose value.

Lemme get this straight:
you're concerned about aircraft noise reducing the value of your property, but refuse to accept regulations that may (just may) prevent an aircraft from falling onto you while you're sleeping.

O ... kay ...

10kg aircraft "threatens" airbus a320. Sure.

Yes, it IS a threat. And a responsible person wouldn't be flying these things where they can put other people's lives at risk.

Might've been a bird, and those don't come with radio control.

Yet airports DO take measures to discourage birds from being in their vicinity. Now, most birds generally don't fear fines and prison sentences, so the measures usually take the form of: (i) changing the environment, to make it less appealing -- removing surrounding trees, food sources, etc; (ii) trained birds of prey; (iii) sound-generating devices.

Why do we hear about incidents with drones but not about incidents with RC aircraft?

RC aircraft have historically been used by a small number of (responsible) hobbyists. Drones are becoming more widespread, and their owners are starting to include idiots.

It's a shame that some idiots are behaving this way. I say release the falcons on them!

Up until about a decade or so ago in Australia, some clever private individuals established companies and worked their 9 - 5 job through the company, enjoying much lower tax rates and other such benefits of corporate law (shifting losses to other years, etc).

The Australian Tax Office stepped-in and declared if you look like a private individual, walk like a private individual and quack like a private individual ... you're a private individual and will pay tax at the appropriate rate. You'll also receive a fine for trying to be clever.

So clearly, the government is able to crack down on those who try to be clever and follow the LETTER of the law but not the SPIRIT of the law. Unfortunately, the government is very SELECTIVE when deciding where to act.

Knowing that the tax laws allow large corporations to get a refund of prior year taxes when they have a loss I asked my accountant about it. His response was that it would cost far more to file the paperwork than what the refund would be.

This here is the real zinger.

Almost everything that these large corporations do which results in them realising such lower effective tax rates -- lower than small businesses, and lower than even lowly paid employees -- is LEGAL, however EXPENSIVE to achieve.

Let's say the professional advice, off-shore entities, and expenses for submitting paperwork to government departments costs a million dollars a year (I plucked that number out of the air): a company would need revenue many times that to make it worth all the effort. So existing laws -- which make such behaviour legal -- favour larger corporations.

It's the same with family trusts in Australia: they're legal financial instruments that "coincidentally" allow people to decimate their income tax obligations. Unfortunately, they're also a little costly to establish and maintain, so only wealthy people end-up using them.

NONE of these laws are by chance ... I believe they're DELIBERATELY DESIGNED to benefit the wealthy.