I am constantly having to dig for simple crap like "crop"

I don't think I've ever inserted a picture using 2007, but that sounded like crap to me. I loaded up Word 2007, dragged a picture into the document and looked at the ribbon tabs. I saw one had a pink "Picture Tools" annotation and lo and behold, Crop is the largest button on the entire toolbar.

Here's a screenshot for anyone who would otherwise happily believe what I think is baseless complaining.
http://imgur.com/9Um3d

You misunderstood the GP's post. He's expressing dismay that someone must overstep the mark, as ambiguous as it is, before proceedings can be brought and a judge can rule on whether the defendant acted unlawfully. What he's suggesting is that there ought to be a way for either the police, an independent body or perhaps an individual to identify ambiguous areas of law, that exist because of a changing world or otherwise, and seek clarification from a judge as to how the law should be interpreted.

Whether this is in fact impossible under the current system, or whether his proposal would be unworkable, I could not say.

No, it's not a user's job to give developers a way to monetise their product, but I also think we have a responsibility not to remove such methods.

I use NoScript and explicitly whitelist reputable advertising agencies. I had Adblock Plus installed for a time, but only to hide distasteful images. I rarely click on advertising, but every couple of months an advertisement will spark my curiosity. I have a hard time believing many users who install these types of addons never do the same thing. I also contribute to the websites statistics, which may or may not help a webmaster negotiate with advertisers.

I routinely ask the question, "what if everyone did it?". In the case of ad removal, there would be quite serious ill-effects: I would much prefer to consume ad-supported content than pay subscription fees.

I'm a little uncomfortable with what the NoScript author has done, but as far as I'm aware, there is no viable alternative.

It must also be pointed out that, if Microsoft were to behave in a similar fashion, many here at Slashdot would find it hard to contain their disgust.

I find it much more worrying that he likes to drink a coffee and Mountain Dew cocktail rather than one or the other.

[BritainsSoTalented] is the most subscribed channel on youtube.

No it isn't. It's the most subscribed channel this week and that's because the television series begun three days ago. Judging by username alone, all but two of the top 26 channels (based on subscription count) are not based on or part of traditional media.

All the available evidence points to thePowerOfGrayskull (905905).

Using a cookie, TinyURL allows you to enable previews, i.e., view where a TinyURL points to before following the link.

Except that, when bought with a PC, Windows costs a tenth of that.

Of course the widespread prevalence of wrongdoing doesn't excuse Microsoft's transgressions - whatever they may be, but I'm willing to bet that most of those who cut their nose off to spite their face by foregoing the use of Microsoft tools on moral grounds, are happy using banks, cars, chemicals of all kinds and are perfectly content in consuming the products of multinational corporations. The criticism Microsoft receive in certain circles is grossly disproportionate.

Microsoft is one of 59 members of the Association for Competitive Technology
[1]. The only victim here is the readership of Slashdot. There is a concerted campaign here to slate Microsoft regardless of any basis in reality.

Wikileaks claims the president of the ACT has strong ties to Microsoft, but only provides the ironically named, unsourced open-access Wiki, SourceWatch[2], as evidence for this latest smear campaign.

This is not the work of Microsoft. This lobbying was perpetrated by the software industry in general. People round here fail to see, for reasons unbeknown to me, that Microsoft is not exceptionally evil as corporations go.

Sorry, I read "your WD Caviar" as "a WD Caviar".

Magic is rather unnecessary. A multi-terabyte Caviar already exists.

http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=576

Ah yes. The cnet article didn't use technical language and I seem to have made some wrong assumptions.

It's my understanding that a dialogue box appeared during installation of the router software asking if one wanted to purchase a web filtering suite. I know there are people who instinctively click the close button of unfamiliar prompts, but the fact remains that rather than explicitly clicking no, they failed to answer the question. I think the original behaviour was perfectly acceptable and if it were my decision, would only have changed it to prevent further bad press.

Software that attempts to sell you other products or have you "register" your copy and persists to do so until you instruct otherwise is par for the course these days.

A router that hijacks a small number of queries for financial gain on the other hand, is a serious breach of trust, much more so than this current controversy. Use of the word 'hijack' in the article headline was rather misleading.