Why do you need Exchange Server on the back end to handle office? Office works fine on a standalone PC, SOHO users just have it running on a single PC or use windows shares (without a domain controller) to share documents. Office documents can be stored on any shared file system and sent/received by any email system. So exchange server is not needed to support office.

But could they order that the unopened box be shipped to the USA, where it will be forced open by US law enforcement and the contents examined?

If BBC iPlayer were to have the old episodes available, rather than its usual habit of removing programmes N days after broadcast, then there would be no incentive for fan and torrent sites to 'pirate' them.

True,. If you distribute a Linux binary then as long as the user is running the same library .so versions as it was linked with, chances are that it will run with no problems irrespective of the distribution.

The article suggests that Arch will be the first distribution to have 3.16, but Gentoo got there before it,

Where there are allocated seats (which is not the case in this story), why would anyone want to pay extra to board first? In many other situations, the more important, or higher ranked, the person the later they have take their seat. For example in the Navy, the most senior officer is the last to board a transport and the first to disembark. When there are state occasions (such as a Royal marriage), the "ordinary" people have to arrive first and sometimes be in their seats hours in advance, whereas the VIPs arrive at the last moment.

As a business, or first class, traveller, which would you prefer - staying longer in the first/business class lounge and boarding last or boarding first and having to sit on the plane for longer before it departs?

Probably because the gate agents are not employed by the airline but by a third party contractor who provides the agents for all gates irrespective of the airline.

Maybe apply the 'three strikes' doctrine and make it that after N false take-downs all of the copyrights they do own revert to the public domain.

And those doing so should be also charged with perjury, as allowed for by DMCA. Claiming to own the rights to something to which you do not own the rights should be treated as being far more serious that copying (or distributing) something without permission (so called 'piracy').

Why not? Here the OTA terrestrial TV is a mixture of 'free to view' and encrypted 'subscription or pay-per-view' channels all using the same spectrum. The encrypted and unencrypted channels not only use the same spectrum but also share the same MUX..

Or they could encrypt the OTA transmissions and require viewers to use a CAM to decode them.

Yes, you turn over they keys to the safe and inside they find sheets of paper with what appears to be random letters and numbers written on them. Can the court compel you to disclose the "meaning" of what is written on those documents?

As do territorial rights/restrictions - you cannot access this information because of where you are (or where geolocation of your IP address thinks you are). Or "we do not support the browser/OS you are using.

Why should ISPs not be regulated the same as phones? They both do basically the same thing - provide the infrastructure for party A to connect to party B and exchange information. The only real difference is that a phone line only (normally) allows communication with a single peer at one time but communication to multiple peers can be multiplexed over the connection to an ISP.

Do not forget that someone owns the copyright on every video posted on YouTube, whether it is a private individual posting a video of their cat playing with a ball of string or a TV company posting a complete TV show.