Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Also, "freedoms" that can easily be taken advantage of by corporate entities rarely works out in your personal interests. What the Senators are discussing limits Facebook's "freedom" to abuse your information. I feel you're only opposed to this in order to be consistently libertarian. You need a new philosophy.
C-to-CIL compilers already exist, Microsoft includes one as part of VC.
Anyway, Silverlight actually disables unsafe code, so C# is gimped in this regard on Windows Phone 7 ( http://forums.silverlight.net/forums/p/2983/182246.aspx ).
I remember him giving an interview on TV where he described how the NHS didn't consider her case a priority because she had a bad prognosis (indeed, she died in April 2008, meaning she got about 7 years). By a strict definition this is "rationing" (but please don't throw around the word "socialist" as though it's some derogative, you should know better than name-calling) but I ask how any (seemingly) amoral US-based health insurance company would possibly fund the same operation: fact it they probably wouldn't on account of the "pre-existing" Downs Syndrome so he would have had to shell out at least £250,000 (at least $450,000 in today's money) for the operation.
But in any event: isolated incidents like these do not provide an accurate representation of the system. The NHS saved my life, and countless others, and I'm not bankrupt because of it.
Whilst Microsoft was late to the party (we're talking early-1990s) they never had the impression they could supplant the Internet with something proprietary.
The "Walled Gardens" of the 1990s (AOL, CompuServe, The Microsoft Network, etc) were just value-added content layers on top of services provided by the Internet and all included access to the World Wide Web.
So basically MSN (the original one) was Microsoft's competitor to AOL and not "The Internet".
Microsoft didn't include TCP/IP in early versions of Windows because there just wasn't any demand, and third-parties were already making their own add-ons that provided this. Much the same reason IPv6 wasn't added to Windows until Vista even though IPv6's specifications were stable enough by the release of XP SP2 in 2005. I'm sure they had better things at the time for their developers to work on.
Another example is text relating to the formulation of explosive materials: should that be considered "illegal information" too? From this we return to the concept of illegal numbers, then it all starts getting ridiculous.
I believe it's easier to hold the position that no information or data is inherently illegal, neither should possession (which becomes a strict-liability offence, a can of worms) than to get stuck in the debate of what is and isn't illegal. Besides, if you're really after a piece of information or data then you're eventually going to be able get it.
As for the W3C, it's far from dead. If anything it's the WHATWG that's dying: none of their other projects have anywhere near the same community following HTML5 did.
It's a shame, because their network is actually alright, I didn't get that much downtime and had no limits or caps for what I felt was a reasonable monthly fee (I was on their HomeOffice 8000 plan, the one with the static IP address).