The only real value of microsoft products is to admins, because they
...come with Active Directory.
It would be against microsoft's philosophy to build better, more secure systems.
This is of course why Windows 7 has no security advantages over XP, and XP has no advantages over 98.</sarcasm>
As for the "point" of copyright, it is to give authors a temporary monopoly as incentive to create art that will eventually fall into the possession of all the People & enrich everybody.
It seems some in the US Congress and EU Parliament have forgotten that.
I'm not sure that's true outside of the US. Here that is the purpose ("to promote the progress of science and the useful arts"), but I think originally it was supposed to help by replacing previous stronger but more ad-hoc monopoly rights.
That page also has an interesting (anonymous) quote from when the first copyrights started to expire in 1735: "I see no reason for granting a further term now, which will not hold as well for granting it again and again, as often as the old ones expire... it will in effect be establishing a perpetual monopoly, a thing deservedly odious in the eye of the law; it will be a great cramp to trade, a discouragement to learning, no benefit to authors, but a general tax on the public; and all this only to increase the private gain of booksellers.".
The goal for anyone drinking wine, beer or liquor should be to get drunk.
No, the goal should be to drink just enough to get whatever health benefits are being posited this week.
Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server.
Finally, an explanation for the size of my spam folder!
If that's not different from open source then nobody would have needed an open source movement in the first place.
It is one of many kinds of open source.
Putting something in the public domain meets the requirements listed here: http://www.opensource.org/osd.html . It also meets the FSF's definition of "free software".
The reason for having an open source movement or free software movement is that people were starting to keep their software under restrictive licenses. The movements were meant to encourage people to not do this, whether by using less restrictive licenses or public domain.
Perhaps it's because they are selling you Internet access packages?
So why is it a "net neutrality" issue, instead of a "truth in advertising" issue?
but the ISP itself must never throttle any traffic below that limit without explicit consent from the end user
Besides explicit throttling, this also needs to include that they maintain sufficient network capacity and uplink capacity to meet the minimum except in unusual circumstances (such as hardware failure, peering dispute, some newsworthy event that has everyone trying to watch online CNN at once and using 3x typical peak bandwidth, etc).
These ISPs want stipulations to allow them to filter content or more accurately read all the information you send and receive and prioritize it. Which may eventually lead to filtering or using all the information you ever send over the internet for dubious causes.
This is not what TFA says AT&T is asking for. It's also an invalid slippery-slope argument.
Or allowing the phone company to prioritize you phone connection based on the type of conversations you hold.
If someone's trying to call 911, I'd think the phone company should drop someone's chat with their girlfriend if there otherwise wouldn't be capacity for that 911 call.
Life is a healthy respect for mother nature laced with greed.
