I drink directly from the tab. I live in Amsterdam; quality of tab water here is better than the quality of bottled water. There is even a campaign going calling people to quit buying bottled water because of the CO2 footprint.

No. That right you speak of is nor full nor an absolute. One cannot simply use its property to for instance kill people with it. One has to keep to the law. The EU states that Microsoft has used Windows for illegal anti-competitive behaviour, that is what the punishment is about.

I see it differently. Microsoft has a history of abusing its monopoly powers. Abusing monopoly powers is against the law. The extra screens are a punishment to Microsoft because the abused their monopoly powers; they cannot play nice, so competition is forced upon them.

If I were you I would be angry at Microsoft: its conduct causes your extra effort when installing Windows. Then again, geing angry at Microsoft is not likely to change anything, since you are not their main customer and are not even in the group of main customers. Dell, HP, Acer, etc. are.

Being angry at the EU on this point is like being angry at gravity because it broke a vase when someone slipped that vase from his fingers.

The precedent is: abuse your monopoly powers in the EU and you will get slapped. I very much like this precedent. I am a fan of Neelie Kroes' work in going after companies that are anti-competitive and damaging to the free market.

No, that is simply the punishment (this time) for Microsoft. This punishment is in no way precedent for any company that simply ships OSes and abides by (EU) law.

+1, Funny

For those who do not get the joke: go here and search for 'No synthesizers'.

Infringe upon someone's ability to make a profit? And that is illegal? It is one of the cornerstones of capitalism.

So? Person A has chosen a very bad business model. He should try something else to make the rent.

So if I were to sell bread for 10 a loaf and my next door neighbor sells the same bread for 2 a loaf, he infringes on my ability to make a profit and I can sue him for that? Is that your point?

No one *takes away*. Taking away is theft. Taking away is when person A has something, person B comes along and takes is and now person A is empty handed. That is theft, that is taking away.

If person A has a fire burning and person B holds a wooden stick in the fire, both person A as well as person B now have a fire burning. Nothing is taken away.

If person A has an idea and person B makes a copy of that idea, again nothing is taken away.

If person A has a book and person B makes a copy of that book, again nothing is taken away.

Do you mean to say that we should pay for the sunrise every morning? Or that we should pay for the O2 we consume when we breathe? And 'own'? You seem to be confusing property (which you can own) with ideas and stories. Ideas and stories are not property. Copyright does not make stories 'owned' by anyone.

I am with you on that one; I actually thought: even MS cannot be that evil.

Hmmm. Most people do not know how computer viruses work. Installing anti-virus software can lull people in a false sense of security since they also do not know how the anti-virus software does (not) work, but hey, it's not called 'anti' for nuttin, right?

Railroad crossing gates are intuitive for most people: train may pass by crushing and killing you, so such a crossing calls for extra attention automatically.

Smoke detectors do not cause most people to suddenly leave their burning candles unattended or to start playing with matches.

'Bridge out' warning signs call on the viewer to pay extra attention.

So, anti virus software makes ppl less attentive, railroad crossings and warning signs make ppl more attentive and smoke detectors do not alter behaviour. I am afraid I fail to see your point.

You mean this one?

Oh, but the question is well known: What do you get when you multiply six by nine.

And of course the answer to life, the universe, and everything.