I would like to echo this statement that CiviCRM will do everything you require and then some. You can use as much or as little of it as you need and is very flexible if you need to alter things around.
Things like buttons and menus are automatically resized to fit the text (unlike Windows where about a decade or two ago you sometimes had to draw your own buttons).
These days for pretty much any OS: If you follow the design recommendations at least, your UI will be forward compatible. If you use your own or deity forbid use an entirely different API that does require fixed dimensions (eg the way Java does) you may get some weird looking apps.
In mobile, you can invest in newer technologies, more spectrum and better antennae. There is quite a bit of bandwidth available in the licensed spectrum, the spectrum is actually just as big for wireless than for copper and fiber. And precise direction of specific channels is also being worked on.
QoS has nothing to do with net neutrality, it merely signifies what the sender would prefer to be done (when prioritization is necessary) among it's own packets. If I want to prioritize SSH and VoIP, then I'll set the necessary bits so that when I fill the bandwidth with other stuff, those tend to get priority.
QoS is perfectly possible within a neutral framework. The providers treat each customer equally, if the customer wants certain aspects of it's own traffic prioritized, it could do that without impeding the rest of the traffic.
You must have missed the last bubble or you are very naive. Whatever your 'cloud agent' promises you is false. These types of companies go bust and disappear in less than a day, the company will have let the service degrade so far by then that a single hosting company unplugging a system over non-payment topples the entire infrastructure. And the provider itself won't have told anyone it is going bust, most likely it will have stunted with pricing in order to get more customers, loading their systems even more.
And hosting companies don't release data to customers-of-customers, they want their money and these days the cloud providers themselves are renting from other cloud providers; If Dropbox were to stop paying Amazon, AWS would automatically wipe and reassigns the entire system a short period after they shut down the service. Legal action takes years to resolve, not a single provider I have ever worked with will maintain a system for years on their own dime in wait of a legal decision.
This is where the bubble lies. 1TB of raw data storage costs ~$90 these days without power, maintenance, installation, support, data transfer, failover/redundancy/backup... over 3-5 years (the usable life of these drives) at current market prices, you should probably calculate close to $1500 to store and maintain 1TB of data that is properly backed up, redundant and available.
The current cloud providers (Microsoft included) are counting on you NOT using your storage beyond 5-10%. Once everybody starts using more than 15% of their allotted storage (which is inevitable given the increasing amount and sizes of stuff we store) someone will have to pay up.
I do maintain the in-house storage where I work. Even at the lowest market prices and the volume we have (currently ~200TB of usable storage), we are this year looking at a cost of ~$200-300/TB investment just in bare hardware and those prices really haven't dropped over the last 5 years because even though raw storage has dropped somewhat, the hardware to support them has not, replacements for failed disks need to come out of that budget and we need ever more and faster interconnects (larger RAM caches, larger SSD caches, faster SSDs, gigabit to 10g upgrades, SAS interconnects from 3Gbps to 12Gbps) to maintain equally speedy access to all parts of the storage for an increasingly growing and demanding user base.
You can but it is medically pointless. Men can (almost) always produce sperm even when they're 90+ years old. Women run out of eggs somewhere between their late 30's and early 50's.
The "computer you already own" is not a fair comparison. I "already own" a Mac therefore Mac/iOS development to me is free.
If I had to target Windows-specific platforms, I'd need a Visual Studio license ($2000) and a Windows Server license and a Windows SQL Server license ($2000) and a Windows computer ($2000) and then the target device ($1000) and a Windows server ($250/month).
But that is just part of the investment. If one were foolish enough to invest in Microsoft ecosystems, they'd be out more than $1000 on licensing alone and that cost simply gets carried forward to the customer. I grew up with commercial Unix, Microsoft, OS/2 etc ecosystems, $0.99 applications were never the norm.
... so where is the systematic, reliable evidence that not being neutral in the way you treat traffic is somehow better for the future of the Internet? There are two parties: money grubbing corporations looking to maximize profit by double dipping and "the people" that require net neutrality in order to be able to build their future on it. Sure, the party that donates the most money will win.
That is an administrative rule (in order to boost profits) which can easily be broken by impersonating another device. A technical limitation would be some sort of hardware incompatibility.
It's not creepy if it works. It's kind of like real spam - try millions of times and if one works it pays off.
Dick pics/crude messages work for a subset of women as do really well thought out messages. But a really good message costs 30m-1h; a bad one
Your equipment cannot be incompatible with an unlimited data plan. Data transfer limits are artificial profit boosters, there is absolutely no technical reason they can't give everyone unlimited data transfer.
The great thing about grandfathered plans is that they are contractually obligated to provide the service to you. Don't give it up unless you can move to a more customer-friendly provider that does give you unlimited data.
Perhaps Bill can show up and plug in a scanner on stage to demonstrate the plug and pray function.
I've never seen either a Mac or a Linux box suffer from 'decay'. The box will work progressively slower compared to newer, faster systems which you may get used to eg. at your job but I've never seen the box slow down any measurable amount (unless of course, the hard drive is getting close to full etc). Windows on the other hand simply slows down due to updates and antivirus getting heavier and heavier, Windows machines will also fill their own hard drives (I manage some boxes that have been installed when XP first came out, even with minimal user data, the machine has gotten cleaned up multiple times due to a full hard drive (mainly logs, updates and system restore data)
Windows 9x-ME was really Windows 4 all along. 2000 was version 5, XP-10 is version 6.
Most windows versions suck, regardless of version numbering. They suck less when it comes around to having a third service pack but they're still miles behind a real OS. (I haven't used windows computers at home since windows 3.11)