Try JRMC. It's not free, but you get what you pay for. And, at least ~5 years ago (last time I needed something like WMC), it was good.
You might actually find Win10 to be less flashy than Vista/7/8. It's mostly flat with few visual effects, gradients and the like, and even transparency can be deactivated.
You have to call it something to distinguish it from the rest of the product family at this point. Long-term, it'll probably just be called "Windows".
That's precisely my point - the valid reason to regulate here is specific, measurable harm, not "general well-being".
I did scraping before (and note that we aren't talking about screenscraping here, but rather website scraping) - I once wrote a scraper that presented an entire online forum as a newsgroup. Based on my experience with that, and on the layout of the RCW website, scraping this particular thing is absolutely trivial.
I agree that we shouldn't have to do that. I'm just saying that I find it doubtful that they do it to extract money from people, because I just don't see that working well when it's so easily scraped. If someone were to hire me to do that, it'd probably take me something like a few hours, and I wouldn't ask more than $200 for such a job.
The way the laws are laid out on that website, it would be trivial to scrape them into a single document. Even the URLs there are very predictable, making it particularly easy. For $615/year, I'm sure someone would do it.
All I can say is that I regularly look up RCWs pertaining to different things where I have doubts or am just curious about it, and so far I haven't found any trouble finding the relevant bits.
From a lawyer's perspective, perhaps this all is still missing crucial bits. If providing, say, a single-page HTML download would be immensely useful, then sure, they should do it (especially as they already likely have some kind of script along these lines, as you do have a single-HTML option for individual chapters).
So far, all the people responding to my example have overlooked one crucial word in it: "force". Does Finland merely provide incentive for people to maintain a healthy lifestyle? Or do they actively force people into such a lifestyle. That's the main distinction here.
Thank you for illustrating my point so eloquently. It's precisely because of people like you that this line of reasoning is so fraught with peril.
Um, the search is by keyword also (click on the "Search RCWs" link to see the full UI). And PDFs are refreshed once per year because paper publication of the complete thing is also once per year, it's not like they're deliberately slowing things down.
Here's a better example, then - Revised Code of Washington:
Most recent version is searchable online HTML. It, and all the previous editions, are also available as downloadable PDFs, exactly as they are published on paper. All of these are free.
You are missing the point: none of these force you to exercise, merely encourage you to do so. But if your rationale is "general welfare", then literally forcing people to exercise is equally legitimate - it's for their own good!
Let me rephrase that. It could be used as a justification of such a law, yes. My point is that it doesn't have to be, and we're better off not doing that because that would have undesirable legal side effects down the line.
"General well-being of the people" is a very vague notion that can be used as a justification for too many things, most of which you probably wouldn't like at all. Of specific note is that it doesn't require any outside actor - they could just as well limit your own activities that are potentially harmful to yourself, even statistically speaking (i.e. not harmful to you personally, but universally banning them would prevent enough people from exercising them in a harmful way that it would improve "general well-being"
It's far better to go with some more concrete justifications, such as specific measurable harm that is inflicted by the actor to other parties. It's not exactly hard to do with pollutants, either, because the emissions are measurable, and so are their effects. It's still collective harm, since it's pretty hard to quantify the individual damage you get from e.g. AGW (though still possible in some cases, and I'd love to see the polluters pay compensation and damages specifically to people they hurt whenever we can trace it), but then at least it's about harm, not some nebulous "it could be better that way".
I see the difference. The point is that it's not about "general well-being of the populace" at all.
What extent of "encouraging" do you find acceptable? For example, should we tax people higher if they don't exercise enough, and then use that money to give everyone else free gym passes?