Don't these two goals conflict? Benefit national defence and of utmost importance to society?

Am I the only one who is seeing the irony here?
The US government, original owners of the Internet, is now considering creating a law to take control of the same Internet. Why did the sell it in the first place, if they were afraid of it becoming such a force in the hands of the public?

Despite what supporters of OSS believe Should or Should Not be allowed or done, Nintendo still has the right to decide what software is acceptable for use on their hardware.

The issue or lesson here is that companies have to be more diligent when fulfilling their contractual obligations. I Atari feels that it does not have to check on its suppliers, then the short coming lies with Atari, not Nintendo.

I have read the article, and the linked article (http://www.infoworld.com/d/green-it/when-pcs-dont-snooze-you-lose-634?source=fssr ).
I still have not found a definition of 'power down' or 'monitor'.

Power Down:
Do they refer, hit the power button and pull the plug, or use stand by and hibernate?

Monitor:
What kind of monitor? CRT, LCD, Plasma, etc.? Is the monitor powered down (see above) or in stand by/(Energy Star)power save-stand by?

I think part of the reason that the research has been discounted, is that the scientific method was not followed. If these questions are left vague, how can any results be accurate?

As a side question, FTA - "Powering down those systems can result in as much as $45 in energy savings per PC and $30 per monitor, per year, according to Energy Star. Just chew on that for a moment. That's $75 a year, times the number of PCs and monitors at your organization. Or you can take the more conservative figure of $25."

This leads to WTF?! Who is doing the math here?