Such threats are called baratry, and as has featured prominently on/. serveral times it is now a viable economic model for some companies (especially those wielding unenforceable patents).
The most disturbing issue about the RIAA's work to shut people down, is that they're going after those who do little economic harm in order to frighten their uninvolved or only marginally involved (in the file trading scene) supporters into compliance somehow. Why do you want to threaten your customers?
I've expereienced the exact same phenomenon, with very similar associations. 5 = F, 7 = V, etc. It might have something to do with a cross-over in the learning phase, and can be noted that the associated pair always has a phonetic commonality in their pronounciation (if not the spelling of the number's word as well).
So, in the first 2 weighings you can determine whether the ball is lighter or heavier, and isolate the set of 4 in which it occurs (having split it into 3 equal sets). Fair enough, you now have the 4 balls in which the odd one occurs.
Please tell me how in 1 weighing using the balance you can determine which of these are the target. Anyone? Near as I can figure you need an additional weighing once narrowing this down to 2 (using a "balanced" break-down from the 4). Likewise, I cannot find an alternate method by substituting some known standard balls from the already eliminated sets which will allow you to reduce this to a single specimen.
So I'm with the originator: you'd need 4 steps to know exacly which one it is. If anyone has a different answer, please enlighten me I'd honestly love to know how my approach can be optimised.
Right - common sense, make sure any product fits your actual needs before you plunk down the cash. For me, it was to be able to transfer files from portable media (Smart Media, Compact Flash) to this gadget on the go. I use it to record video in some cases, but only for transfer to computer or playback on a larger device afterward.
I wouldn't recommend it for watching anything over about 20 minutes on its built-in screen.
It's called a Multimedia Jukebox - http://www.archos.com
20GB, plays MP3 and DivX simple profile (even with a video out port for TV), also records to MP3 audio or MPEG4/DivX video. Got one, it's a lot of fun.
Also available on ThinkGeek.com, or modded on eBay up to 60GB+
Only part of it is acceptance, the other issue is that the robot is operating in an environment designed for certain dimensional criteria. Homes are made for people, and though many of the individual tasks within a home can be better performed by specialised adaptations, for the most part the more adaptable a robot and in this case more capable of mimicking human behaviour the more efficiently it will be able to get about and accomplish its duties.
I'd like to append this for anyone who may read it later: when I first wrote the analysis, the "no boy" version had not fully loaded due to slashdotting, and though I had an entire frame it was still badly blurred, obscuring just how *poorly* of a retouch job had been done. This was a clone tool job all the way, remarkably bad at that. The patterned replication, caused by using an almost singular sampling area for copying, is all over the boys prior location. Bad armor matchup, tank body pattern, background refuse pattern, tank shadow, and dirt have a "digital smear" affect because of it.
If anyone ever asks nicely I'll take the boy out of the original myself and actually do a good job of it, for demonstration purposes.
I suck, and you posted as AC? Yes, other people have said they can't see the boy's shadow and therefore think it's a fake, and yes some areas of the tank front were lightened (though no details altered in the process). The boy's shadow is compressed - in fact all perspective details have been flattened by the use of a telephoto zoom lens. His shadow is entirely intact dispite this fact, though stick thin. You can even see his raised foot, and were the shot wider his arm would also appear. Your inability to perceive a single detail against a mountain of other evidence (including the readily available original used in several sources eleswhere on the internet, as indicated in these posts) does not do well to refute the argument.
Lemme guess, you do this for a living as well and have similar self-produced evidence to back up your expert claim? No? Then thanks for the chuckle - I know no argument will dissuade you from believe as you please so I won't attempt to any further.
Tasteless but funny quote: Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics; even if you win, you're still retarded. Look at me!
Okay, there have been several comments on this so far but I feel obligated to chime in since digital photo enhancement/adjustment/manipulation is part of my occupation.
The photo, with the boy, is real. Dispite the fact that the selective discoloration appears to be conveniently placed on the tank directly behind him, those things do happen in photography. All the shadows match the lighting angles and the objects in the scene, given that the sun was at a very low angle and the shadows compressed (vertically, extended laterally) by the angle of the photographer. Any manipulation which may have been done is not distinguishable at this resolution.
The boy *removed* is most obviously fabricated for reasons both editorial (with regards to composition) and technical. Technically: the yellow material visible against the structure in the background behind and underneath the tank (which looks to be signage or equipment, it's difficult to make out given the depth of field used) is utterly plagued by a patterned replication, showing unskilled cloning tool usage. The front armor is not only magically repaired in this version, but also has tiles which mirror each other at their joint. The now inexplicable shadow which matched the boy previously remains, and is too sharp to be cast in conjunction with the antenna (or whatever it may be) contributing to the one next to it, even given the vertical/perspective shadow compression which makes this a more forgiving detail.
Editorially, that's *not* the way to shoot a tank. Were it the subject, the depth of field is acceptable but it's too large in frame which would distract from it; the image has also been shot to compress multiple planes of perspective, but the reasoning for that choice is completely devoid from this version. There remains no balance, sense of motion, or romanticism of the elements which would suggest this to be a professional photograph. Given that other talent is still obvious (use of lighting, combination of aperature use even with telephoto for precision DoF control) these omissions make it suspect. It's only when the relationship between tank and boy are present that the photo makes journalistic or artistic sense.
It's like watching one of those "funniest home video" gag ("gag" is an editorial pun here on my part) shows where people start trying to pick apart how the situation could have happened or been staged, without noticing the signs which do not appear in *front* of the camera: filming scenes without significant memorable of photographic content, panning to locations before the action occurs in preparation, etc.
There are multiple ways to tell a fake, and gentlemen I do tell you: the "no boy"'s a hack job.
(As a slight aside, the tank appears to be Israeli given the modern hebrew writing thereon and was not in motion when the photograph was taken)
I cleaned up the HTML but not the formatting - don't blame me for that one. On with the article:
---------
Not too far back, battle waged. A battle between the big man and the little man. Massive Microsoft against little Lindows. After a lengthy court battle, the little man finally prevailed. Microsoft was not able to stop them from using the Windows-like name. That was in Spring of last year. This year, Lindows decided to give Microsoft another swift kick in the pants.
Perhaps still a little haughty over their win, Lindows decided to take on another of Microsoft's products. In late 2002, Microsoft put into market the Media Center Edition of its popular Windows XP operating system, complete with system requirements dictated to OEM system builders. On January 28, 2003, Lindows released its own Lindows Media Computer as a direct competitor.
After looking over all the media hype, I went searching for one of these little machines. Could the Lindows Media Computer really pull off meeting the new Windows machine in a pitched battle? It did boast Instant on DVD, CD, MP3, and VCD playback as one of the prime features. And, it was only a fraction of the price for a Windows Media Center system. At the time, only one vendor had them available, iDOTpc.com. After some communication, the folks at iDOTpc.com were kind enough to loan me one of the units to take for a spin.
This is it, right out of the box. One word came to my mind after seeing it next to my PogoLinux machine - tiny. I hoped there was some serious power packed in that little box or someone was going to be unhappy. With that in mind, on to the system specifications.
VIA C3 E-Series 933MHz Processor
VIA PLE133 + VT8235 Chipset Motherboard
128MB RAM PC133 and up to 1GB of PC100/PC133 SDRAM capacity
20GB ATA 100 5400RPM hard drive attached to one of 2 Dual-channel enhanced IDE Ports supporting UDMA 66/100/133
16X DVD Drive in the single full height 5.25" drive bay
4 USB 1.1 Ports (two in front, two in back), 1 Serial Port, 1 Parallel Port , and 1 PCI Slot
Integrated Trident 2X AGP with 2D/3D Graphics Acceleration
Integrated VIA AC97 Audio, 3 Audio Jacks: Line-in, Line-out, and Mic-in
Onboard VIA 10/100 Base-T Fast Ethernet Controller
Mini-ITX Tower Case with 150W Power Supply
Dimension: 10.24"(D) x 5.31"(W) x 11.75"(H)
LindowsOS 3.0 MP3.com Edition with dedicated tech support
One Year Parts and Labor Warranty
FRONT
BACK
Some of you who are avid readers may recognize this box. It is none other than the FIC Falcon CR51 small form factor PC that was announced last October. However, it has been updated with the etDVD software from Elegent Technologies. The etDVD software is a boot time embedded software set that does all the magic of audio and video playback at boot time.
Brains! I need Brains!
Of course, I couldn't resist cracking the case. While there were some instructions included, I thought it would be more interesting to see how intuitive it would be to go without. Three thumb screws on the back side released the side panel which slid away. Inside, there isn't a whole lot to see. Yes. On the left you can just get a glimpse of the hard drive which is mounted to the floor of the chassis. Dead center is the DVD drive, and to the upper right is the teeny tiny power supply. Again, not too interesting. But, I discovered that one of the thumb screws actually held onto the DVD drive sled. After popping off the front face plate, I found the mate to the thumb screw. Removing this, I was able to get the DVD drive out of the way and have a better look at the rest of the insides.
As expected, I wasn't a good photographer. But let me assure you, everythin
Uh, how does this possibly qualify as a front page news item?
Game boy's for playing games. The PowerShot's for taking pictures. Functional overlap seems a lot more important for comparing products (as they would actually begin to compete with one another) than this crap.
There are other third party calibration tools as well, like ColorVision's `ColorCal Spyder'. I do most of my photographic work on a 17 inch LCD, but have to re-proof everything for contrast and saturation on the CRT before it goes to production.
The LCD's much nicer on the eyes, so the extra time to perform one of the last steps on a different display is worth the trade off for me.
Personally I can't wait for LCD's to improve, I love'em.
In the graphics design realm it's rarely about refresh rates (unless you're working specifically with animation or motion media production). The color calibration just isn't there yet, the level threshold dropps off at the bottom (reducing the low luminosity contrast) and turns to glare far too low in the histogram (almost eliminating useful high-luminosity contrast).
They're also sensitive to heat, both from the operating environment and duration of use causing further shifts in appreciable color and (perceived) refresh.
OLED display's promise to eliminate the contrast and color calibration issues, but until those are more viable in cost and lifetime graphics design will still rely alost solely on CRT's.
You'd probably like Sluggy Freelance, they're obviously heavily influenced by Bloom County and the later Outland. Musing on grassy knolls and what not - plus, it's a great strip overall.
There's 2 general audiences when it comes to selling a service: selling to businesses or consumers. What businesses like, consumers probably won't and likewise flipped the other way. The more empowered the consumer is, the less of a hold the business has which weakens the potential for additional sales (or product attention, in this case).
This is a hard balance to find when creating a "middle-ground" product like AOL is attempting. If the industry were to insist on it being moderately crippled, they could make it more appealing to consumers by subsidizing the cost to increase the availability. That approach would probably work, which is also why we won't ever see it tried (they don't want to compromise or out of pocket expense, they want the consumer by the nose and nothing else).
One of the biggest sensations in internet related journalism is to get the scoop on some break-down of security (and therefore break-in and theft) regarding personal material. It's a backlash against Orwellian fears, and is cried out much louder than warranted to carry the kind of attention the *journalist* wants to give it.
I highly doubt this came from one of Wired's top staff, probably someone who wanted to scoop the next CC theft by the million. Nothing to see here, move along!
With the keyboard firmly attached to the monitor, doesn't that create a bit of an ergonomic limitation? If it's not right for you by default, you're screwed. Not only do you have to use it in their position in relationship to the monitor, use of an external would be made difficult by the other getting in the way (unless it was hacked off).
Right - rather than letting the out-of-touch marketers drive the development, the out-of-touch developers do. We can be the most obstinate and ornery sort, insistant on the perfection of our design and completely unable to see it from a different viewpoint. This typically makes for very insecure code as well, in that it's made to handle what the program expects but not what the real world will attempt.
I've worked in QA as well, which is unfortunately low on the chain of command when it comes to design decisions. Authority was granted to ensure smooth operation, but not to make gross changes even where certainly appropriate. I'll go ahead and throw out a buzzword here that really can have practical application: XP. Tightly integrate requirements, design, development, QA and documentation teams to come up with what works and be flexible enough to make those changes early on before the momentum prevents it.
The software is usually designed for the wrong reason in the first place: to fulfill a marketability niche seen by some buzz-word driven demand. It's sold from a marketing and sales rep, whose usual job description could be summed up under "schmooz with customer", who pulls out his checklist of latest technologies to make sure he promises X, Y, Z and hyperbaric interoperability with toasters from obscure places like Kansas.
These requirements and obscure promises are handed to engineering who satisfy the technical aspect and ship it. Never have any of the QA departments I've seen have a dedicated usability expert; most of the QA engineers were just re-tasked programmers without any HCI design principle background or experience.
So, since corporate and enterprise level software development is driven by the sale by those out of touch with the true needs of those making use of the software the incredibly wide gap develops that frustrates the @#$( out of everybody.
I've used TurboTax online for several years without a problem (it's actually all in-browser, no Java). They allow you the say over what is or is not taxable depending on where you enter it and how you treat it; it sounds like this was more an error of inexperience (having only used 1040 EZ previously).
Slashdot Mirror
Did anyone else feel it was an insult to those with intelligence that plot took only an 8% grab?
Gee, I guess that means the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy is a tremendous flop, doomed to failure; it's got the whole thing backwards!
Such threats are called baratry, and as has featured prominently on /. serveral times it is now a viable economic model for some companies (especially those wielding unenforceable patents).
The most disturbing issue about the RIAA's work to shut people down, is that they're going after those who do little economic harm in order to frighten their uninvolved or only marginally involved (in the file trading scene) supporters into compliance somehow. Why do you want to threaten your customers?
I've expereienced the exact same phenomenon, with very similar associations. 5 = F, 7 = V, etc. It might have something to do with a cross-over in the learning phase, and can be noted that the associated pair always has a phonetic commonality in their pronounciation (if not the spelling of the number's word as well).
So, in the first 2 weighings you can determine whether the ball is lighter or heavier, and isolate the set of 4 in which it occurs (having split it into 3 equal sets). Fair enough, you now have the 4 balls in which the odd one occurs.
Please tell me how in 1 weighing using the balance you can determine which of these are the target. Anyone? Near as I can figure you need an additional weighing once narrowing this down to 2 (using a "balanced" break-down from the 4). Likewise, I cannot find an alternate method by substituting some known standard balls from the already eliminated sets which will allow you to reduce this to a single specimen.
So I'm with the originator: you'd need 4 steps to know exacly which one it is. If anyone has a different answer, please enlighten me I'd honestly love to know how my approach can be optimised.
Right - common sense, make sure any product fits your actual needs before you plunk down the cash. For me, it was to be able to transfer files from portable media (Smart Media, Compact Flash) to this gadget on the go. I use it to record video in some cases, but only for transfer to computer or playback on a larger device afterward.
I wouldn't recommend it for watching anything over about 20 minutes on its built-in screen.
It's called a Multimedia Jukebox - http://www.archos.com
20GB, plays MP3 and DivX simple profile (even with a video out port for TV), also records to MP3 audio or MPEG4/DivX video. Got one, it's a lot of fun.
Also available on ThinkGeek.com, or modded on eBay up to 60GB+
I was prescribed Provigil (modafonil) as a stimulant to combat sleep disorder induced narcolepsy - didn't do much for myself, unfortunately.
Only part of it is acceptance, the other issue is that the robot is operating in an environment designed for certain dimensional criteria. Homes are made for people, and though many of the individual tasks within a home can be better performed by specialised adaptations, for the most part the more adaptable a robot and in this case more capable of mimicking human behaviour the more efficiently it will be able to get about and accomplish its duties.
I'd like to append this for anyone who may read it later: when I first wrote the analysis, the "no boy" version had not fully loaded due to slashdotting, and though I had an entire frame it was still badly blurred, obscuring just how *poorly* of a retouch job had been done. This was a clone tool job all the way, remarkably bad at that. The patterned replication, caused by using an almost singular sampling area for copying, is all over the boys prior location. Bad armor matchup, tank body pattern, background refuse pattern, tank shadow, and dirt have a "digital smear" affect because of it.
If anyone ever asks nicely I'll take the boy out of the original myself and actually do a good job of it, for demonstration purposes.
Like porn is really that hard to find on the web?
I suck, and you posted as AC? Yes, other people have said they can't see the boy's shadow and therefore think it's a fake, and yes some areas of the tank front were lightened (though no details altered in the process). The boy's shadow is compressed - in fact all perspective details have been flattened by the use of a telephoto zoom lens. His shadow is entirely intact dispite this fact, though stick thin. You can even see his raised foot, and were the shot wider his arm would also appear. Your inability to perceive a single detail against a mountain of other evidence (including the readily available original used in several sources eleswhere on the internet, as indicated in these posts) does not do well to refute the argument.
Lemme guess, you do this for a living as well and have similar self-produced evidence to back up your expert claim? No? Then thanks for the chuckle - I know no argument will dissuade you from believe as you please so I won't attempt to any further.
Tasteless but funny quote: Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics; even if you win, you're still retarded. Look at me!
Okay, there have been several comments on this so far but I feel obligated to chime in since digital photo enhancement/adjustment/manipulation is part of my occupation.
The photo, with the boy, is real. Dispite the fact that the selective discoloration appears to be conveniently placed on the tank directly behind him, those things do happen in photography. All the shadows match the lighting angles and the objects in the scene, given that the sun was at a very low angle and the shadows compressed (vertically, extended laterally) by the angle of the photographer. Any manipulation which may have been done is not distinguishable at this resolution.
The boy *removed* is most obviously fabricated for reasons both editorial (with regards to composition) and technical. Technically: the yellow material visible against the structure in the background behind and underneath the tank (which looks to be signage or equipment, it's difficult to make out given the depth of field used) is utterly plagued by a patterned replication, showing unskilled cloning tool usage. The front armor is not only magically repaired in this version, but also has tiles which mirror each other at their joint. The now inexplicable shadow which matched the boy previously remains, and is too sharp to be cast in conjunction with the antenna (or whatever it may be) contributing to the one next to it, even given the vertical/perspective shadow compression which makes this a more forgiving detail.
Editorially, that's *not* the way to shoot a tank. Were it the subject, the depth of field is acceptable but it's too large in frame which would distract from it; the image has also been shot to compress multiple planes of perspective, but the reasoning for that choice is completely devoid from this version. There remains no balance, sense of motion, or romanticism of the elements which would suggest this to be a professional photograph. Given that other talent is still obvious (use of lighting, combination of aperature use even with telephoto for precision DoF control) these omissions make it suspect. It's only when the relationship between tank and boy are present that the photo makes journalistic or artistic sense.
It's like watching one of those "funniest home video" gag ("gag" is an editorial pun here on my part) shows where people start trying to pick apart how the situation could have happened or been staged, without noticing the signs which do not appear in *front* of the camera: filming scenes without significant memorable of photographic content, panning to locations before the action occurs in preparation, etc.
There are multiple ways to tell a fake, and gentlemen I do tell you: the "no boy"'s a hack job.
(As a slight aside, the tank appears to be Israeli given the modern hebrew writing thereon and was not in motion when the photograph was taken)
---------
Not too far back, battle waged. A battle between the big man and the little man. Massive Microsoft against little Lindows. After a lengthy court battle, the little man finally prevailed. Microsoft was not able to stop them from using the Windows-like name. That was in Spring of last year. This year, Lindows decided to give Microsoft another swift kick in the pants.
Perhaps still a little haughty over their win, Lindows decided to take on another of Microsoft's products. In late 2002, Microsoft put into market the Media Center Edition of its popular Windows XP operating system, complete with system requirements dictated to OEM system builders. On January 28, 2003, Lindows released its own Lindows Media Computer as a direct competitor.
After looking over all the media hype, I went searching for one of these little machines. Could the Lindows Media Computer really pull off meeting the new Windows machine in a pitched battle? It did boast Instant on DVD, CD, MP3, and VCD playback as one of the prime features. And, it was only a fraction of the price for a Windows Media Center system. At the time, only one vendor had them available, iDOTpc.com. After some communication, the folks at iDOTpc.com were kind enough to loan me one of the units to take for a spin.
This is it, right out of the box. One word came to my mind after seeing it next to my PogoLinux machine - tiny. I hoped there was some serious power packed in that little box or someone was going to be unhappy. With that in mind, on to the system specifications.
VIA C3 E-Series 933MHz Processor
VIA PLE133 + VT8235 Chipset Motherboard
128MB RAM PC133 and up to 1GB of PC100/PC133 SDRAM capacity
20GB ATA 100 5400RPM hard drive attached to one of 2 Dual-channel enhanced IDE Ports supporting UDMA 66/100/133
16X DVD Drive in the single full height 5.25" drive bay
4 USB 1.1 Ports (two in front, two in back), 1 Serial Port, 1 Parallel Port , and 1 PCI Slot
Integrated Trident 2X AGP with 2D/3D Graphics Acceleration
Integrated VIA AC97 Audio, 3 Audio Jacks: Line-in, Line-out, and Mic-in
Onboard VIA 10/100 Base-T Fast Ethernet Controller
Mini-ITX Tower Case with 150W Power Supply
Dimension: 10.24"(D) x 5.31"(W) x 11.75"(H)
LindowsOS 3.0 MP3.com Edition with dedicated tech support
One Year Parts and Labor Warranty
FRONT
BACK
Some of you who are avid readers may recognize this box. It is none other than the FIC Falcon CR51 small form factor PC that was announced last October. However, it has been updated with the etDVD software from Elegent Technologies. The etDVD software is a boot time embedded software set that does all the magic of audio and video playback at boot time.
Brains! I need Brains!
Of course, I couldn't resist cracking the case. While there were some instructions included, I thought it would be more interesting to see how intuitive it would be to go without. Three thumb screws on the back side released the side panel which slid away. Inside, there isn't a whole lot to see. Yes. On the left you can just get a glimpse of the hard drive which is mounted to the floor of the chassis. Dead center is the DVD drive, and to the upper right is the teeny tiny power supply. Again, not too interesting. But, I discovered that one of the thumb screws actually held onto the DVD drive sled. After popping off the front face plate, I found the mate to the thumb screw. Removing this, I was able to get the DVD drive out of the way and have a better look at the rest of the insides.
As expected, I wasn't a good photographer. But let me assure you, everythin
Don't you mean "sink"?
Uh, how does this possibly qualify as a front page news item?
Game boy's for playing games. The PowerShot's for taking pictures. Functional overlap seems a lot more important for comparing products (as they would actually begin to compete with one another) than this crap.
If this were 6 days from now it might make sense.
There are other third party calibration tools as well, like ColorVision's `ColorCal Spyder'. I do most of my photographic work on a 17 inch LCD, but have to re-proof everything for contrast and saturation on the CRT before it goes to production.
The LCD's much nicer on the eyes, so the extra time to perform one of the last steps on a different display is worth the trade off for me.
Personally I can't wait for LCD's to improve, I love'em.
In the graphics design realm it's rarely about refresh rates (unless you're working specifically with animation or motion media production). The color calibration just isn't there yet, the level threshold dropps off at the bottom (reducing the low luminosity contrast) and turns to glare far too low in the histogram (almost eliminating useful high-luminosity contrast).
They're also sensitive to heat, both from the operating environment and duration of use causing further shifts in appreciable color and (perceived) refresh.
OLED display's promise to eliminate the contrast and color calibration issues, but until those are more viable in cost and lifetime graphics design will still rely alost solely on CRT's.
You'd probably like Sluggy Freelance, they're obviously heavily influenced by Bloom County and the later Outland. Musing on grassy knolls and what not - plus, it's a great strip overall.
That last one currently retails for ~$1,500USD.
There's 2 general audiences when it comes to selling a service: selling to businesses or consumers. What businesses like, consumers probably won't and likewise flipped the other way. The more empowered the consumer is, the less of a hold the business has which weakens the potential for additional sales (or product attention, in this case).
This is a hard balance to find when creating a "middle-ground" product like AOL is attempting. If the industry were to insist on it being moderately crippled, they could make it more appealing to consumers by subsidizing the cost to increase the availability. That approach would probably work, which is also why we won't ever see it tried (they don't want to compromise or out of pocket expense, they want the consumer by the nose and nothing else).
One of the biggest sensations in internet related journalism is to get the scoop on some break-down of security (and therefore break-in and theft) regarding personal material. It's a backlash against Orwellian fears, and is cried out much louder than warranted to carry the kind of attention the *journalist* wants to give it.
I highly doubt this came from one of Wired's top staff, probably someone who wanted to scoop the next CC theft by the million. Nothing to see here, move along!
With the keyboard firmly attached to the monitor, doesn't that create a bit of an ergonomic limitation? If it's not right for you by default, you're screwed. Not only do you have to use it in their position in relationship to the monitor, use of an external would be made difficult by the other getting in the way (unless it was hacked off).
Kudos on having a binary clock, though.
Right - rather than letting the out-of-touch marketers drive the development, the out-of-touch developers do. We can be the most obstinate and ornery sort, insistant on the perfection of our design and completely unable to see it from a different viewpoint. This typically makes for very insecure code as well, in that it's made to handle what the program expects but not what the real world will attempt.
I've worked in QA as well, which is unfortunately low on the chain of command when it comes to design decisions. Authority was granted to ensure smooth operation, but not to make gross changes even where certainly appropriate. I'll go ahead and throw out a buzzword here that really can have practical application: XP. Tightly integrate requirements, design, development, QA and documentation teams to come up with what works and be flexible enough to make those changes early on before the momentum prevents it.
Humble programmers would be nice, too.
The software is usually designed for the wrong reason in the first place: to fulfill a marketability niche seen by some buzz-word driven demand. It's sold from a marketing and sales rep, whose usual job description could be summed up under "schmooz with customer", who pulls out his checklist of latest technologies to make sure he promises X, Y, Z and hyperbaric interoperability with toasters from obscure places like Kansas.
These requirements and obscure promises are handed to engineering who satisfy the technical aspect and ship it. Never have any of the QA departments I've seen have a dedicated usability expert; most of the QA engineers were just re-tasked programmers without any HCI design principle background or experience.
So, since corporate and enterprise level software development is driven by the sale by those out of touch with the true needs of those making use of the software the incredibly wide gap develops that frustrates the @#$( out of everybody.
I've used TurboTax online for several years without a problem (it's actually all in-browser, no Java). They allow you the say over what is or is not taxable depending on where you enter it and how you treat it; it sounds like this was more an error of inexperience (having only used 1040 EZ previously).