If you're willing to consider facts instead of punchlines:
T-Mobile: Always had a reasonable (90 days) unlock policy, which was and remains fairly well advertised.
Verizon: Never really locked their phones to begin with, except for certain iPhone models, but that's an Apple issue and not a Verizon one. The Verizon phones that were "locked" always used 123456 or 000000 as the code, which was well documented in Verizon's T&Cs. The usefulness of unlocked IS-95/IS-2000 phones was somewhat questionable, though you could activate Verizon phones on Alltel and vice versa back in the day. I never tried it with US Cellular but I've heard anecdotes from people who did and were successful. In the LTE era Verizon has never locked any of their phones; virtually every Verizon branded LTE capable phone has the required GSM and WCDMA bands to operate globally, on any network, and they're SIM unlocked out of the box.
AT&T/Cingular: Had a policy similar to T-Mobile back in the day, though they didn't advertise it and their CSRs weren't well trained on it. Finding someone to process the request was tedious but possible
The big offender amongst the "big four" was Sprint. They've long had a fairly draconian policy but the damages resulting therefrom were insignificant before LTE came on the scene. Sprint's phones were only useful on Sprint's network, most of them lacked the bands to be useful on other CDMA networks, whereas Verizon and Alltel (before they got assimilated) had phones that were fully interoperable with one another. I used an Alltel branded RAZR on Verizon for many years without any issues.
I'm not a "hard core" coder (defined here as someone who does nothing but development) but I've been writing C for 15+ years (it was the first language I learned and remains my favorite) and have yet to encounter a situation where the use of 'goto' is a requirement or even better than the alternative. The one circumstance where I've seen it advocated is for the main loop of a long running program but I'm not certain why goto is any better than while (1) (or similar constructs) in this scenario. Correct me if I'm wrong but the main argument against goto is that it results in haphazard code that's hard to follow. I think this is true, even in the simple case of using goto to replace while (1), never mind the more convoluted examples that invariably result when goto enters the equation.
So, people who are smarter than me, what am I overlooking? What C coding scenario presents itself where goto is the most eloquent solution?
I don't find it hard to believe that the FBI would have legitimate national security reasons (i.e., surveilling suspected foreign operatives or hostile non-state actors) for using technology of this nature and for wanting to keep the methods of using said technology close to their chest. It does beg the question of why they're so eager to share this sort of technology with other law enforcement operations though.
It's either critical to national security or it isn't. In the former case why the hell are we pissing it away on trivial shit ranging from drug smuggling to murder? Sooner or later the methods will come out in a court case; you can't share this sort of thing with thousands of law enforcement officers and local/state prosecutors without a few of them eventually deciding to prioritize their own investigations/prosecutions ahead of "national security."
For my money this is another blurring of the traditional line between Federal and State power. The Feds really need to concern themselves with bad actors from aboard and leave the States to do their own thing with mundane domestic criminals.
Had this been done at the time of the civil war, it would have cost considerably less than the cost of the war.
What makes you think the South would have gone along with that? Or that Lincoln and his Cabinet (the smartest men of their time, just as the framers of the Constitution were) didn't think of it? All Lincoln cared about was preserving the Union. If it was as simple as writing a check do you not think that he would have tried it? The South revolted because they saw the long term demographic writing on the wall. Nothing Lincoln could have offered them would have changed that. Recall that he didn't even make slavery an issue until after Antietam.
That is how they did it in Britain, Washington D.C. and basically the rest of the world.
Britain's economy was never dependent upon slavery in the manner of the plantation states of the south. It's more than compensating owners for their "property"; you're effectively destroying an entire economic system. The effects were felt far and wide and extended well beyond the monied interests of the plantation owners. You can't implement a massive economic and societal change simply by writing a check. It took the bloodiest war in American history to effect that change, followed by a generation of reconstruction, and the effects of the resulting economic dislocation were being felt well into the 20th Century.
When writing the US Constitution, there was another option -- abolish it in the future.
Then the Southern States refuse to ratify the Constitution. Now you've got two (likely more than two, since if you're not willing to compromise on this issue what other issues go unresolved?) weaker countries on the global stage. A stage they're sharing with a massive pissed off empire they just fought an eight year war against. No, there was a reason why principled men on both sides were willing to compromise on issues as dear as slavery. It's a shame that our modern "leaders" can't look back to that example, for the issues we face today are nothing like the issues those men faced. Can you imagine the current crop of "leaders" in Washington sitting down to draft a new Constitution? Those idiots would spend the next five years arguing over who was going to take the minutes of the first meeting.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights is in my opinion beautifully written with the exception of claiming some people are not full people.
*sigh*
Did you know that the northern states wanted the slaves counted at 0% while the southern states wanted them counted at 100%? Seems backwards doesn't it? 60% was a compromise, like a lot of things in those days; what it did was accelerate the end of slavery by moving up the day of reckoning when the agrarian south would no longer be able to outvote the populous north in the United States Congress. Not to roam too far off topic here but the 3/5th's clause has got to be the most misunderstood part of the Constitution. Uninformed people parrot that line as though it enshrined "less than equal" into the law when what it actually did was reduce the power of the slave-holding states and so accelerate the demise of that abominable institution.
I'm not certain what else the people of the day could have done about it. I suppose they could have fought the Civil War right then and there, immediately after kicking the British out, but that doesn't seem terribly likely to have ended well for anybody, slave or freedman. If there was a better way to thread that needle the smartest men of the day couldn't figure it out. Frankly I've never heard anybody of our generation figure it out either and we've got 20/20 hindsight to work with.
they entered a house and the guy had a high-power rifle with armor-piercing bullets
I highly doubt that the prep in your scenario had "armor-piercing bullets." You could have left the statement at "high-power rifle," because virtually any rifle (aside from a.22LR) has enough energy behind it to penetrate Kevlar. A run of the mill.30-06 hunting round will go through most body armor like a hot knife through butter. Military grade body armor with ceramic plates may provide single-hit protection against such a round, with emphasis on "may."
The lion's share of the time that you hear about "armor-piercing bullets" it's simply a line being spouted by those who don't know, or, more cynically, those who are trying to push an anti-gun agenda.
Parts of the US government hold that Bitcoin is property, namely the IRS. However, the government certainly counts it as money with regard to money laundering - just ask Charlie Shrem.
Laundering can be done with any tangible asset, from cash to diamonds to Bitcoin. That's hardly news and doesn't suggest the Government considers Bitcoin to be a currency. Bitcoin can be considered a currency when it's legal tender for all debts, public and private. Until then it's merely an asset. The fact that some people are willing to trade it for goods and services does not make it a currency. You could exchange everything from beer to securities for goods and services. Maybe I'll start charging people shares of GOOG for my labors....
I keep telling my friends that "cloud computing" is not a new concept. We used to call them "dumb terminals." Not a precise analogy of course but close enough for our purposes. You just know that's going to come full circle in another decade or so.
First Contact sucked. Hate to say it because I'm a TNG fan but it's the sad truth. It was 90% dumbed down action movie and 10% (the final scene with First Contact) Trek.
I was mostly going for the cheap laugh though.:) Everyone knows the theory of even numbered Trek releases...
I have every file from every computer system from every OS upgrade/re-install. In Windows the heirarchy looks like this: C:\old c\old c\old c\old c\old c
Oh, I need that file from 1996? Well duh, it's under C:\old c\old c\old c\old c\old c\old c\old c\old c\old c\stuff\
2001? C:\old c\old c\old c\documents and settings\shakrai\my documents\
Works in Linux too, where it's just/oldroot/oldroot/oldroot/
Things we used to say in person or on the phone we now say in e-mail, by text message, or on social networking platforms.... Everything is now digital, and storage is cheap — why not save it all?
Sony illustrates the reason why not. The hackers published old e-mails from company executives that caused enormous public embarrassment to the company. They published old e-mails by employees that caused less-newsworthy personal embarrassment to those employees, and these messages are resulting in class-action lawsuits against the company.
Never Write what you can Phone;
Never Phone what you can Say;
Never Say what you can Whisper;
Never Whisper what you can Nod;
Never Nod what you can Wink.
The terrorists have no problem with breaking the law to kill and murder people on kamikaze missions... but I'm sure they're nice reasonable people who will stop using encryption if we make it illegal.
It's worked for the gun control movement; we made carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony illegal and presto, no more gun violence.
ts just like the extreme NRA supporters who see anarchy around every corner and need to carry a gun when they go shopping "because its their constitutional right" to do so
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not a "Constitutional Right." It's a Natural Right inherent to all human beings that is simply recognized by the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant us any rights, our rights are inalienable and endowed by our creator(s)
Your broader point is one of common sense, which I tend to agree with; I don't make a point of carrying my firearm with me everywhere but there are certain places where I will always carry it (the laundromat at 2AM) and recent events (a spree of strong-arm robberies in my hometown) also factor into my decision as to when and where to carry.
I'm no more "forced" to use Facebook than I am "forced" to have a cell phone. I could get by with just a landline or even no phone. It would just be massively inconvenient. It's the same with Facebook. Yes I could live without it. I choose not to. You're welcome to decide differently if you wish.
Have you ever heard of fiduciary duty? Are you working for the IRS or your clients?
So he had just under $400 on a 1099-MISC. Since it was on a 1099-MISC it was definitely reported to the IRS.
That's obviously reportable. On the other hand, reporting "just under $400" in income that didn't come with a 1099 is pure stupidity. If I tell you I got $500 fixing someone's computer are you seriously going to tell me that needs to be reported as income? C'mon.....
Why? Why, with everything that everyone knows about Facebook, all the privacy violations, all the obvious signs that they really don't give a rat's ass about the users, just the money that users' data can earn them, would anyone still be using Facebook?
Because social networking is > than what which preceded it and Facebook has a critical mass of users that makes the alternatives (G+) pale in comparison? I have friends on five different continents. Is there an easier way to remain in contact with them? To stay abreast of the developments in their lives and to keep them current on mine? Additionally, I have friends in countries where texting isn't included in their base phone plans, so they all invariably use FB Messenger for communications that Americans would conduct over SMS. My choice is to use Facebook or to wall myself off from these people. My irritation with Facebook's nonsense is not high enough to choose the latter. Besides, FB only knows that which I choose to share; if you choose to share every single trip to the grocery store and every single sexual partner they're going to build quite the profile on you. If you're a bit more selective then they won't have as much information. Common sense applies here people.
And I'll smack the first person that responds with "just have them e-mail you"; there's a reason why social networking displaced e-mail and anyone who is going to give that glib answer should consider how they would have responded to "just have them write you" when e-mail was the "new thing."
If they only make $350 I can avoid the Schedule C by reporting it as "Other Income" on line 21 of a 1040, but I cant get that onto a 1040A or an EZ.
If they only make $350 in the side-gig why the hell would you report it? For one it was probably handled in cash, which means the IRS is clueless about it. Additionally, one of the few useful lessons I learned from a professional tax preparer was that the IRS doesn't audit people seeking to recover amounts that are worth less than the audit itself costs the IRS. Nobody ever got audited over $350 in undeclared income.
At least sweep <1099 amounts ($600) under the rug for heaven's sake....
Considering that this is one of those things that are virtually perfect for computer automation
You would think that but I've personally seen Turbotax screw up my taxes in years where I had a somewhat but not really complicated (by American standards) tax return. I can't speak for the rest of the World but in the United States your taxes are not a simple matter of mathematics. There's a logic flow involved, "Is X true? Proceed to Y." and at the end of the day if you can read the instructions you can do a better job of following the logic flow than Turbotax's programmers. It's my opinion that Turbotax is useless for anything more than 1040-EZ and if your taxes are so simplistic that you can file 1040-EZ why the hell would you pay someone else to do them for you?!
The year that Turbotax screwed up my return to the tune of $2,800 was the year that I stopped using it and started doing my taxes the "hard" way. It's not all that difficult, the hardest part is collecting the relevant information for your return and if you're enough of a geek to be reading Slashdot I assume you're enough of a geek to use some sort of financial management software. Moneydance is my personal favorite but even a well kept spreadsheet would work in a pinch. Once you have the data is simply a matter of knowing which form to file and going through it line by line. My Federal taxes take no more than two hours, my New York State taxes about three. The former can be electronically filed through Free Fillable Forms, the latter has to be done by mail, unfortunately, but most States are ahead of NYS here and provide an e-filing option for people who roll their own taxes.
Even if you outsource your taxes you're still on the hook for any errors or omissions, so what's the benefit to paying someone else to do them for you? Do them yourself, you'll save some money, learn a little bit about our tax system (and the absurdities therein) and be ultimately responsible for your own actions rather than trusting some other idiot's software to do the job for you. Of course, Americans aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer when it comes to taxes; how many people do you know that live paycheck-to-paycheck all year but get four digit refunds? A $2,000 refund is $38.46 per week that you could have had in your pocket if had bothered to fill out your W-4 properly.
Only a retard does there own taxes. There is a reason you don't do them even if your technically competent to do them. If your competent to do them then you shouldn't have a problem being able to afford to have a CPA take care of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice American slam and you got FP to boot.
If you're willing to consider facts instead of punchlines:
T-Mobile: Always had a reasonable (90 days) unlock policy, which was and remains fairly well advertised.
Verizon: Never really locked their phones to begin with, except for certain iPhone models, but that's an Apple issue and not a Verizon one. The Verizon phones that were "locked" always used 123456 or 000000 as the code, which was well documented in Verizon's T&Cs. The usefulness of unlocked IS-95/IS-2000 phones was somewhat questionable, though you could activate Verizon phones on Alltel and vice versa back in the day. I never tried it with US Cellular but I've heard anecdotes from people who did and were successful. In the LTE era Verizon has never locked any of their phones; virtually every Verizon branded LTE capable phone has the required GSM and WCDMA bands to operate globally, on any network, and they're SIM unlocked out of the box.
AT&T/Cingular: Had a policy similar to T-Mobile back in the day, though they didn't advertise it and their CSRs weren't well trained on it. Finding someone to process the request was tedious but possible
The big offender amongst the "big four" was Sprint. They've long had a fairly draconian policy but the damages resulting therefrom were insignificant before LTE came on the scene. Sprint's phones were only useful on Sprint's network, most of them lacked the bands to be useful on other CDMA networks, whereas Verizon and Alltel (before they got assimilated) had phones that were fully interoperable with one another. I used an Alltel branded RAZR on Verizon for many years without any issues.
Overlooked the return in my third if statement, but you get the idea....
void func () {
if (!AquireResource1()) return;
if (!AquireResource2()) {
Cleanup1();
return;
}
if (!AquireResource3()) {
Cleanup2();
Cleanup1();
}
DoStuff();
Cleanup3();
Cleanup2();
Cleanup1();
return;
}
I'm not a "hard core" coder (defined here as someone who does nothing but development) but I've been writing C for 15+ years (it was the first language I learned and remains my favorite) and have yet to encounter a situation where the use of 'goto' is a requirement or even better than the alternative. The one circumstance where I've seen it advocated is for the main loop of a long running program but I'm not certain why goto is any better than while (1) (or similar constructs) in this scenario. Correct me if I'm wrong but the main argument against goto is that it results in haphazard code that's hard to follow. I think this is true, even in the simple case of using goto to replace while (1), never mind the more convoluted examples that invariably result when goto enters the equation.
So, people who are smarter than me, what am I overlooking? What C coding scenario presents itself where goto is the most eloquent solution?
And why does the FBI need to hide this?
I don't find it hard to believe that the FBI would have legitimate national security reasons (i.e., surveilling suspected foreign operatives or hostile non-state actors) for using technology of this nature and for wanting to keep the methods of using said technology close to their chest. It does beg the question of why they're so eager to share this sort of technology with other law enforcement operations though.
It's either critical to national security or it isn't. In the former case why the hell are we pissing it away on trivial shit ranging from drug smuggling to murder? Sooner or later the methods will come out in a court case; you can't share this sort of thing with thousands of law enforcement officers and local/state prosecutors without a few of them eventually deciding to prioritize their own investigations/prosecutions ahead of "national security."
For my money this is another blurring of the traditional line between Federal and State power. The Feds really need to concern themselves with bad actors from aboard and leave the States to do their own thing with mundane domestic criminals.
Had this been done at the time of the civil war, it would have cost considerably less than the cost of the war.
What makes you think the South would have gone along with that? Or that Lincoln and his Cabinet (the smartest men of their time, just as the framers of the Constitution were) didn't think of it? All Lincoln cared about was preserving the Union. If it was as simple as writing a check do you not think that he would have tried it? The South revolted because they saw the long term demographic writing on the wall. Nothing Lincoln could have offered them would have changed that. Recall that he didn't even make slavery an issue until after Antietam.
That is how they did it in Britain, Washington D.C. and basically the rest of the world.
Britain's economy was never dependent upon slavery in the manner of the plantation states of the south. It's more than compensating owners for their "property"; you're effectively destroying an entire economic system. The effects were felt far and wide and extended well beyond the monied interests of the plantation owners. You can't implement a massive economic and societal change simply by writing a check. It took the bloodiest war in American history to effect that change, followed by a generation of reconstruction, and the effects of the resulting economic dislocation were being felt well into the 20th Century.
When writing the US Constitution, there was another option -- abolish it in the future.
Then the Southern States refuse to ratify the Constitution. Now you've got two (likely more than two, since if you're not willing to compromise on this issue what other issues go unresolved?) weaker countries on the global stage. A stage they're sharing with a massive pissed off empire they just fought an eight year war against. No, there was a reason why principled men on both sides were willing to compromise on issues as dear as slavery. It's a shame that our modern "leaders" can't look back to that example, for the issues we face today are nothing like the issues those men faced. Can you imagine the current crop of "leaders" in Washington sitting down to draft a new Constitution? Those idiots would spend the next five years arguing over who was going to take the minutes of the first meeting.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights is in my opinion beautifully written with the exception of claiming some people are not full people.
*sigh*
Did you know that the northern states wanted the slaves counted at 0% while the southern states wanted them counted at 100%? Seems backwards doesn't it? 60% was a compromise, like a lot of things in those days; what it did was accelerate the end of slavery by moving up the day of reckoning when the agrarian south would no longer be able to outvote the populous north in the United States Congress. Not to roam too far off topic here but the 3/5th's clause has got to be the most misunderstood part of the Constitution. Uninformed people parrot that line as though it enshrined "less than equal" into the law when what it actually did was reduce the power of the slave-holding states and so accelerate the demise of that abominable institution.
I'm not certain what else the people of the day could have done about it. I suppose they could have fought the Civil War right then and there, immediately after kicking the British out, but that doesn't seem terribly likely to have ended well for anybody, slave or freedman. If there was a better way to thread that needle the smartest men of the day couldn't figure it out. Frankly I've never heard anybody of our generation figure it out either and we've got 20/20 hindsight to work with.
they entered a house and the guy had a high-power rifle with armor-piercing bullets
I highly doubt that the prep in your scenario had "armor-piercing bullets." You could have left the statement at "high-power rifle," because virtually any rifle (aside from a .22LR) has enough energy behind it to penetrate Kevlar. A run of the mill .30-06 hunting round will go through most body armor like a hot knife through butter. Military grade body armor with ceramic plates may provide single-hit protection against such a round, with emphasis on "may."
The lion's share of the time that you hear about "armor-piercing bullets" it's simply a line being spouted by those who don't know, or, more cynically, those who are trying to push an anti-gun agenda.
Parts of the US government hold that Bitcoin is property, namely the IRS. However, the government certainly counts it as money with regard to money laundering - just ask Charlie Shrem.
Laundering can be done with any tangible asset, from cash to diamonds to Bitcoin. That's hardly news and doesn't suggest the Government considers Bitcoin to be a currency. Bitcoin can be considered a currency when it's legal tender for all debts, public and private. Until then it's merely an asset. The fact that some people are willing to trade it for goods and services does not make it a currency. You could exchange everything from beer to securities for goods and services. Maybe I'll start charging people shares of GOOG for my labors....
.... the more they stay the same. :)
I keep telling my friends that "cloud computing" is not a new concept. We used to call them "dumb terminals." Not a precise analogy of course but close enough for our purposes. You just know that's going to come full circle in another decade or so.
Stop using common sense and logic. You'll undermine the Democrat's argument for campaign finance "reform" (aka: incumbent protection)
First Contact sucked. Hate to say it because I'm a TNG fan but it's the sad truth. It was 90% dumbed down action movie and 10% (the final scene with First Contact) Trek.
I was mostly going for the cheap laugh though. :) Everyone knows the theory of even numbered Trek releases...
They're kind of like Star Trek movies that way. ;)
I have every file from every computer system from every OS upgrade/re-install. In Windows the heirarchy looks like this: C:\old c\old c\old c\old c\old c
Oh, I need that file from 1996? Well duh, it's under C:\old c\old c\old c\old c\old c\old c\old c\old c\old c\stuff\
2001? C:\old c\old c\old c\documents and settings\shakrai\my documents\
Works in Linux too, where it's just /oldroot/oldroot/oldroot/
Things we used to say in person or on the phone we now say in e-mail, by text message, or on social networking platforms. ... Everything is now digital, and storage is cheap — why not save it all?
Sony illustrates the reason why not. The hackers published old e-mails from company executives that caused enormous public embarrassment to the company. They published old e-mails by employees that caused less-newsworthy personal embarrassment to those employees, and these messages are resulting in class-action lawsuits against the company.
Never Write what you can Phone;
Never Phone what you can Say;
Never Say what you can Whisper;
Never Whisper what you can Nod;
Never Nod what you can Wink.
The terrorists have no problem with breaking the law to kill and murder people on kamikaze missions... but I'm sure they're nice reasonable people who will stop using encryption if we make it illegal.
It's worked for the gun control movement; we made carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony illegal and presto, no more gun violence.
ts just like the extreme NRA supporters who see anarchy around every corner and need to carry a gun when they go shopping "because its their constitutional right" to do so
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not a "Constitutional Right." It's a Natural Right inherent to all human beings that is simply recognized by the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant us any rights, our rights are inalienable and endowed by our creator(s)
Your broader point is one of common sense, which I tend to agree with; I don't make a point of carrying my firearm with me everywhere but there are certain places where I will always carry it (the laundromat at 2AM) and recent events (a spree of strong-arm robberies in my hometown) also factor into my decision as to when and where to carry.
I'm no more "forced" to use Facebook than I am "forced" to have a cell phone. I could get by with just a landline or even no phone. It would just be massively inconvenient. It's the same with Facebook. Yes I could live without it. I choose not to. You're welcome to decide differently if you wish.
Have you ever heard of ethics?
Have you ever heard of fiduciary duty? Are you working for the IRS or your clients?
So he had just under $400 on a 1099-MISC. Since it was on a 1099-MISC it was definitely reported to the IRS.
That's obviously reportable. On the other hand, reporting "just under $400" in income that didn't come with a 1099 is pure stupidity. If I tell you I got $500 fixing someone's computer are you seriously going to tell me that needs to be reported as income? C'mon.....
Why? Why, with everything that everyone knows about Facebook, all the privacy violations, all the obvious signs that they really don't give a rat's ass about the users, just the money that users' data can earn them, would anyone still be using Facebook?
Because social networking is > than what which preceded it and Facebook has a critical mass of users that makes the alternatives (G+) pale in comparison? I have friends on five different continents. Is there an easier way to remain in contact with them? To stay abreast of the developments in their lives and to keep them current on mine? Additionally, I have friends in countries where texting isn't included in their base phone plans, so they all invariably use FB Messenger for communications that Americans would conduct over SMS. My choice is to use Facebook or to wall myself off from these people. My irritation with Facebook's nonsense is not high enough to choose the latter. Besides, FB only knows that which I choose to share; if you choose to share every single trip to the grocery store and every single sexual partner they're going to build quite the profile on you. If you're a bit more selective then they won't have as much information. Common sense applies here people.
And I'll smack the first person that responds with "just have them e-mail you"; there's a reason why social networking displaced e-mail and anyone who is going to give that glib answer should consider how they would have responded to "just have them write you" when e-mail was the "new thing."
Quickbooks works well enough for the money, but if there was a reasonable alternative I would be gone in seconds.
If your company is small enough to use Quickbooks it's small enough to use GNUCash.
If they only make $350 I can avoid the Schedule C by reporting it as "Other Income" on line 21 of a 1040, but I cant get that onto a 1040A or an EZ.
If they only make $350 in the side-gig why the hell would you report it? For one it was probably handled in cash, which means the IRS is clueless about it. Additionally, one of the few useful lessons I learned from a professional tax preparer was that the IRS doesn't audit people seeking to recover amounts that are worth less than the audit itself costs the IRS. Nobody ever got audited over $350 in undeclared income.
At least sweep <1099 amounts ($600) under the rug for heaven's sake....
Considering that this is one of those things that are virtually perfect for computer automation
You would think that but I've personally seen Turbotax screw up my taxes in years where I had a somewhat but not really complicated (by American standards) tax return. I can't speak for the rest of the World but in the United States your taxes are not a simple matter of mathematics. There's a logic flow involved, "Is X true? Proceed to Y." and at the end of the day if you can read the instructions you can do a better job of following the logic flow than Turbotax's programmers. It's my opinion that Turbotax is useless for anything more than 1040-EZ and if your taxes are so simplistic that you can file 1040-EZ why the hell would you pay someone else to do them for you?!
The year that Turbotax screwed up my return to the tune of $2,800 was the year that I stopped using it and started doing my taxes the "hard" way. It's not all that difficult, the hardest part is collecting the relevant information for your return and if you're enough of a geek to be reading Slashdot I assume you're enough of a geek to use some sort of financial management software. Moneydance is my personal favorite but even a well kept spreadsheet would work in a pinch. Once you have the data is simply a matter of knowing which form to file and going through it line by line. My Federal taxes take no more than two hours, my New York State taxes about three. The former can be electronically filed through Free Fillable Forms, the latter has to be done by mail, unfortunately, but most States are ahead of NYS here and provide an e-filing option for people who roll their own taxes.
Even if you outsource your taxes you're still on the hook for any errors or omissions, so what's the benefit to paying someone else to do them for you? Do them yourself, you'll save some money, learn a little bit about our tax system (and the absurdities therein) and be ultimately responsible for your own actions rather than trusting some other idiot's software to do the job for you. Of course, Americans aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer when it comes to taxes; how many people do you know that live paycheck-to-paycheck all year but get four digit refunds? A $2,000 refund is $38.46 per week that you could have had in your pocket if had bothered to fill out your W-4 properly.
Only a retard does there own taxes. There is a reason you don't do them even if your technically competent to do them. If your competent to do them then you shouldn't have a problem being able to afford to have a CPA take care of them.
I'm guessing you do your own taxes? ;)
TANSTAAFL