are you going to stop them?
No, I'm going to laugh at them. I thought that was the whole point of it being posted here, actually.
you are NOTHING
Well yeah, but the (lack of) meaning of life is a bit oversized of a topic for here.
the right of a non-state capitalist, for profit corporation to build structures on land where the land owners and local government have decreed they want no such structures?
that is COMMUNIST.
No, I think it's actually closer to fascist. Communists don't have "non-state capitalist, for profit corporations", remember?
It's not a dictatorship, people voted in place the officials that made this happen, it's what most of them want.
1. Don't local elections tend to have really lousy turnout? It's hard to say "most" people want this, if most people don't bother to vote.
2. If people do think they want this, do they understand the (obvious) implications of what they agreed to?
you forget to factor in that the town HAS THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.
No, that's irrelevant because it does nothing to reduce the stupidity and deservingness-of-ridicule of what they decided to do.
The only real value of microsoft products is to admins, because they
...come with Active Directory.
It would be against microsoft's philosophy to build better, more secure systems.
This is of course why Windows 7 has no security advantages over XP, and XP has no advantages over 98.</sarcasm>
As for the "point" of copyright, it is to give authors a temporary monopoly as incentive to create art that will eventually fall into the possession of all the People & enrich everybody.
It seems some in the US Congress and EU Parliament have forgotten that.
I'm not sure that's true outside of the US. Here that is the purpose ("to promote the progress of science and the useful arts"), but I think originally it was supposed to help by replacing previous stronger but more ad-hoc monopoly rights.
That page also has an interesting (anonymous) quote from when the first copyrights started to expire in 1735: "I see no reason for granting a further term now, which will not hold as well for granting it again and again, as often as the old ones expire... it will in effect be establishing a perpetual monopoly, a thing deservedly odious in the eye of the law; it will be a great cramp to trade, a discouragement to learning, no benefit to authors, but a general tax on the public; and all this only to increase the private gain of booksellers.".
The goal for anyone drinking wine, beer or liquor should be to get drunk.
No, the goal should be to drink just enough to get whatever health benefits are being posited this week.
Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server.
Finally, an explanation for the size of my spam folder!
If that's not different from open source then nobody would have needed an open source movement in the first place.
It is one of many kinds of open source.
Putting something in the public domain meets the requirements listed here: http://www.opensource.org/osd.html . It also meets the FSF's definition of "free software".
The reason for having an open source movement or free software movement is that people were starting to keep their software under restrictive licenses. The movements were meant to encourage people to not do this, whether by using less restrictive licenses or public domain.
Perhaps it's because they are selling you Internet access packages?
So why is it a "net neutrality" issue, instead of a "truth in advertising" issue?
but the ISP itself must never throttle any traffic below that limit without explicit consent from the end user
Besides explicit throttling, this also needs to include that they maintain sufficient network capacity and uplink capacity to meet the minimum except in unusual circumstances (such as hardware failure, peering dispute, some newsworthy event that has everyone trying to watch online CNN at once and using 3x typical peak bandwidth, etc).
The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. -- Paul Erlich
