That's why, IMO, Microsoft should go the Google route. They should make Windows free (maybe even Libre), and try to make their money from server software and services. Charge for Office 365, including MS Office, Storage for OneDrive, InTune, Exchange, etc. Create a consumer-focused version of InTune/Office 365-- sort of like iCloud. Continue charging for Windows Server, Exchange, and Sharepoint for business use. Use Windows for desktops/laptops/tablets/mobile as a loss-leader platform that enables them to deliver those services.

It's a bit risky, but I think it's they'll be forced into it within a few more years anyway, and they'd be smart to go that direction before they're dragged in that direction.

Well I think they actually would be very smart to have a rolling release, or somehow encouraging everyone to go up to Windows 10 ASAP. Yes, some of the reason for that would be so that they can give users the features they want, and promote services they'd like to support. The bigger issue is support. I think one of the smartest things that Apple has done in recent years is to make OSX upgrades free. It means that unless you have legacy hardware that's unsupported, there's no reason not to move to the most recent version. That means you don't have to spend as much time and money supporting those old versions. If everyone running Windows XP could have upgraded to Windows 7 at no cost (and without a significant slowdown on the system), then you would have heard a lot less bitching and moaning when Microsoft discontinued support for a 12 year-old operating system.

The problem is, if Microsoft wants to achieve this rolling release by way of subscriptions, they're going to make a lot of people pretty angry. So personally, I think free is a smarter move.

Also-- and I've made this argument many times before-- the OS shouldn't be something that expires. The "subscription" that you're talking about, IIRC, was "Software Assurance" which includes support and free upgrades, but Windows XP wouldn't suddenly stop working if you chose not to renew your subscription.

The rumor regarding this is that Microsoft has been planning a subscription version of Windows where, if you stop paying, your computer stops working. To my mind, that's unacceptable. Next thing you know, HP is going to start shipping subscription printer drivers that stop working if you don't pay their $5/month ransom, or your Smart TV will require a $5 subscription to keep the OS working. If you buy a hardware product, and the hardware vendor includes software because, in their opinion, without that software, your hardware will be useless, then that software should not expire.

I met Weird Al after I saw him on TV...

I'm going to make a purely libertarian argument that in this case, murder-for-hire was justified:

Libertarianism is the belief that one should never initiate force or fraud. So given that:
1. If Fred is a robber and points a gun at Bob's Family, then Bob is justified in killing Fred.
2. If Dave witnesses the above scene, then Dave is justified in killing Fred, because Fred is the one that initiated force.
3. If Fred credibly threatens to kill Bob's Family in the future, and the only way to prevent that is for Dave to kill Fred, then Dave is justified in killing Fred.
4. If Fred's credible threat is not to kill Bob's family, but to kidnap them, then Dave is still justified in killing Fred.
5. If Fred's credible threat is to hire Gino to do the kidnapping, then Dave is still justified in killing Fred. Dave is also justified in killing Gino, because now Gino is also initiating force.

In the case of the Silk Road trial, "Dave" is DPR/Ross Ulbricht, Gino is the government, Fred is Frieldlychemist, and Bob's Family are the peaceful dealers and customers of Silk Road.

Yep, it's really that simple. Life is a binary equation.

Does the New World Order really care about your teeth?

Yeah, that's very much in line with what I'm pointing out.

I don't have a problem with a private contractor being used to actually build and maintain the road. I would be very uneasy allowing the private company to then "own" vital sections of road and charging whatever tolls they like. It would be so much worse if they could block some vehicles, charge different tolls for different vehicles, and set different speed limits for different vehicles, without even needing to provide a reason or rationale.

So imagine that I own a company called "Road America Inc." and we own the roads going in and out of your town. Imagine I'm allowed to say, "Tolls for Ford cars are $1, and Ford cars can go 70 MPH. Tolls for Dodge are $20, and Dodge cars have a speed limit of 35 MPH." You see, I'm not owned by Ford, but I've made a deal with Ford where I get a payoff to promote their brand.

I do, however, own some of the grocery stores in your town, and I'm charging very high tolls on any vehicles that carry groceries. Somehow, all of my grocery stores have cheaper goods. Maybe it's because I use the tolls on groceries to fund those grocery stores. I've outright blocked any incoming shipments of electronics, so my electronics stores are doing very well.

Now does that seem fair?

No, the current mess is mostly due to the fact that we've been treating the Internet like a private entertainment service rather than public telecommunication infrastructure. You're never going to get real "free market" competition out of infrastructure. By its nature, public infrastructure needs to be treated as... well, public infrastructure.

I don't think that's a concern for this discussion. They're not making it any easier or more allowed for ISPs to mess with illegal content. The ISPs are already allowed to block illegal content, and will always be allowed to do that. The news here is that they aren't allowed to block or throttle anything else.

So yes, I would be concerned if they were talking about increasing the ability of ISPs to monitor and restrict questionable content, or if they were talking about expanding the definition of "unlawful content" to include other things. However, that doesn't seem to be relevant here. They're basically saying, "You're not allowed to throttle or block anything anymore. The only exception is if it's child pornography or something equally illegal, in which case, yes, we'll still let you block that."

I think he means the credibility of scientists.

Every Radio Shack I've been to in sdrawcab Nebraska and Iowa has had Arduino stuff in stock in the the last few years. You should go check it out.

You're missing a few things:

First, spending this borrowed money might employ a few people in town, but it also means less money is available to employ other people in the town (demand is reduced for some jobs while increased for others).

Second, the article shows that operating costs are over $11 million per year and that revenues aren't enough to cover those costs.

That puts revenues at nearly $170/month/subscriber and still money must be taken from the general fund to help pay for the system.

The $28 million was the original estimate. The cost at the moment is about $38 million.

There are about 5,400 subscribers of the broadband service giving a debt of about $6,300 per subscriber.

Why would people bother to pirate music anymore? You can use Spotify for free, and get it ad-free and even with downloads allowed for a few dollars a month. There's no point.

Some might argue that this is a serious problem-- that the music industry is in a shambles and it's not clear this is all sustainable. Others might argue that this is evidence of where the problem was all along-- that piracy is the result of high prices and poor service, and when people are provided a cheap and convenient product, they're often willing to pay for it in some way. Either way, I don't see much of a reason to pirate music anymore unless it's somehow unavailable through legal channels.