Or doesn't know how to program. Not saying I'm one of those, but there is a place in this world for nurses and cooks and carpenters who know their trades quite well but not how to construct an algorithm in a computer.

Or were you trolling?

See, that's exactly how the U.S. should do it. It is moronic that we have to pay 3rd parties to submit data and money to the government. But we are responsible if the data is wrong, not the bad programmers.

I'm not following this. Software (I use TaxAct) is quite good at making sure to ask you a lot of detailed questions about your life events and situation. Software can make sure to ask these questions and not forget one like a human can. If you, the end-user, neglect to check a box that says (for example), "I donated a car this year", then that's your fault not the software's. If you're trying to say the accountant would ask "Hey, are you sure you didn't donate a car?" and you respond "Oh yeah...you're right, I did," then OK, the human is better at coaxing info out of you (or inducing you to lie.) Personally, I'll stick to software.

• Can we get someone on the Slashdot staff that has actually some experience of the operating system in use by 96% of the population please?

It's not even correct for the other 4%. On Mac OS X, Silverlight absolutely alerts the user that their version is out of date and a single "OK" click will download the new version for them.

Perhaps you should try going out-of-doors yourself in the evenings instead of sitting in front of computer or television.

Right. Because no humans ever go out-of-doors after work in the summer to enjoy the warmth and the light. Right. Could you be more shortsighted?

Do you truly see no advantage to having more daylight in the evening after you get home from work? Really?

You're full of it. It is illegal for you to not be paid for an hour of worked time. Your scenario is not occurring anywhere. Prove me wrong.

You're not weird at all. The big difference between the island time and ours is that they have year-round warmth. We are trying to maximize the daylight when it's warm outside and we want to be out. We then pay for it in the winter when we might as will be inside when daylight doesn't matter. Your reaction is normal.

I hate to be blunt about this, and I'll probably get downloaded to oblivion, but I don't think most of you understand the reason for daylight saving time. It's really cool when it's warm out to get home and have a lot of light available to you after work to be able to do things outdoors. In June I play tennis until almost 9 PM. That is super cool to be able to do. I really don't understand why everyone is so against it, other than ignorance. The alternative is for the sun to come up at 4 AM, which doesn't help anybody at all. It's just wasted daylight. DST is one of the cooler things that mankind has devised. Its advantages should be quite obvious by now. And yet I see three out of four people are still against it. I feel like I'm living in a bizarro world where people think up is down and left is right. Your reactions are truly that stupefying to me.

Nobody has ever been "DDOS'ed" by Bing. A DDOS is, by definition, a deliberate attempt to knock a site off the net. Bing is just doing business, not attacking. I don't defend Microsoft but let's make sure we use terminology properly.

• The terms do not say "will not". Nor "may not". Nor "must not". Nor "it is a network security violation to", like everybody else. They say "should not", which any kid you know will tell you is code for "you can, you might, and you may, but I'd rather you didn't."

With due respect, your response is also bogus. That sentence didn't just fall into Google's terms of service. It was intentionally put there so that when Google decides they truly don't want servers on their network, they can terminate your agreement and connection. It's truly naive of you to think this language is completely innocent and has zero chance of being enforced.

>I presume it comes with enough lawlessness that I can reclaim (or attempt to reclaim) my funds through the barrel of a gun Of course you can't, because you're not rich enough for the laws to not apply to you.

They have to ask that every time a new version of MS Office comes out anyway.

>If it's good policy to raise the minimum wage to $9.00 from $7.25, and it will actually increase employment as politicians claim, why stop there? Why not raise the minimum wage to $15.00, or $50.00?

For the same reason that if it's better to give a dehydrated man 2 glasses of water instead of 1, it is not logical to give him 50 glasses of water. It is a complete logical fallacy to claim that because a small increase of something is better, any amount of increase is better. Try again.