Ok, I keep seeing these sentiments, and I'm getting very goddamn sick and tired of them.
So-called 'intellectual property' has very little in common with physical property, or the rights thereto appertaining.
Property is property. There's a reason that we use the same noun in both phrases.
For a crime of larceny or 'theft' to occur, several elements must be present, not the least of which is the taking from the possesion of the owner.
Must it?
The copying of music or software cannot be theft, because the 'stolen' object is still in the posession of the owner.
Wrong. The owner's power to sell his work is reduced, and its control over its distribution is reduced. Both these things have been stolen from him. How is this not theft?
I know enough free-market advocates to know that 99% of them are upper-middle class suburbanites and think that everyone is as privileged as they are.
Not at all. I live in China. If living here doesn't turn you into a free market advocate, I don't know what will.
And pretty much the whole damn country is capitalist now anyway.
You complain about government intervention, yet you use the Internet, a government-sponsered network.
That's funny, the last time I checked, I paid money to an ISP that paid money to other ISPs. I don't think I'm depending on the government here.
Actually, it's Civil Disobediance in a state where corporations have all the power.
Oh. I get it. If I don't like Wal-Mart, so I break in and steal everything in the Electronics section, that's Civil Disobediance too, right?
The Internet was designed to be used for all forms of free speech.
With "theft" included, right? Because the Internet is just one big happy hedonistic romper-room with absolutely no connection to the real world or real people, Playland for big kids, right? I'd be inclined to say that you're the one living in some insular little world here, where no one ever really needs to make money and it's ok to throw tantrums when your every whim isn't satisfied.
It's hard to do so when you're dealing with a monopolized industry, such as major record studios.
And who's supporting the monopoly? That would be you. Go do something legal like start your own studio, or educate people about the "evils" of the big ones. Don't go doing the Internet equivalent of rioting and looting because you can't be bothered to shell out for a CD.
Only if that's what your will said. It was your every right to sell the rights to someone else for whatever you could get -- and would you do that if they expire after you die?
please explain to the class the meaning of the word "license" in a completely government-free economy? and exactly how it would be enforced?
Ok, if you want to take what I said to extremes, in a total anarchy, "license" means "what you can do before the corporation torches your house / assassinates you / etc."
come on - no one (re: very few) really wants the government out of the economy; people just want to make sure that the government benefits them more than the other guy.
This is the problem: the government never will benefit one guy more than the other. So they should stick to their basic role of providing national defense, enforcing property rights, keeping people from rioting / looting / killing on a daily basis, etc.
Part of the "enforcing property rights" bit above is also enforcing intellectual property rights (though I agree that it would be better to have corporations do this themselves). This means making sure that if you create something, you have sole license to exploit it. I cannot understand any possible reason to let things lapse into the "public domain" -- you created it, why does the government have to take it away from you? It's criminal.
Fairer system? What are you talking about? There's something called a market economy that you're dealing with here, and the only way that you could possibly make it fairer is to take the damn government out of it completely.
What could be fairer than this: they have a commodity. They want a price for that commodity. They don't force you to pay that price. If you want it enough, you pay, and if you don't, you don't pay. It's very simple. If they start charging more and more for their product, well, that's what the market will bear, and if people are willing to pay that much, then they have no right to complain about high prices.
In short: a price becomes too high or a license becomes unacceptable the second you decide that access to the product (or intellectual property) isn't worth adhering to the license or paying the price. Complaining while still buying and using what you're complaining about is sheer hypocrisy. Breaking the law to obtain access to whatever you're not willing to pay for is downright criminal and should be punished harshly. They don't let you go into Tower Records and tape CD's out of the listening stations, why should the Internet be any different?
In short: if the industry's terms are unacceptable, don't deal with the industry. Theft is not an acceptable solution (it should, in fact, be punished very harshly). Clear enough?
Ok, I come back, and I find that my post's been marked down as a troll. What gives? Can somebody here use more than one goddamned word ("troll") to explain this to me?
If I'm wrong, tell me, but I'll be damned if I'm going to listen to you if you don't also tell me why.
he US is not an anarchy nor anything remotely approaching it. The US is an inefficient corporate totalitarianism,
Point taken.
Unfortunately that inefficiency is rapidly disappearing because it gives corporatism headaches and so laws are being adjusted to streamline corporate controls.
If I'm against "Them", I would much rather have a government that has to pretend to care about me than a corporation that has no such obligations or conceits. If I'm with "Them", I'd choose a government as well -- they're far less fickle. What's there to prefer about corporations?
Then you'd see "benefit going to the swift or the strong or the smart", as you put it, assuming that you were talking about individuals.
I am talking about individuals. No anarchy will survive for long, though -- somebody will fill the power vacuum.
However, people who do stupid things to prop up whatever principles they hold are going to lose no matter what the system -- the question is only how quickly and how much damage they will inflict to everyone around them along the way.
Learn and think about terms before repeating state political rhetoric.
Oh, good, and close with the low blow. Nice touch there.
"all the rest" includes religious movements which are "enemies of the state",
Let's face it: if you know which way the wind is blowing, why the hell are you going to protest right outside the goddamn Great Hall of the People? And when the media barely gives you any coverage any more? If you're going to do unpopular activities, don't flaunt them in front of the authorities.
This applies in the United States too, by the way.
or students that peacefully demonstrate for democracy and their inalienable rights as human beings
Inalienable rights? You don't have nearly as many as you think you have. You've got exactly as many rights as you can get for yourself. I'm not saying be cruel or malicious -- that's just stupid -- but if you're soft you're just begging to be taken advantage of. Ever go to a self-defense class? Number 1 rule: don't look like a victim! Because if you do, you'll be one soon enough.
or anyone that dares to think for themselves and say what they really think.
In China, nobody anti-government gets heard because (a) most of them don't care, and (b) the government doesn't like that sort of thing (who does?). In the States, nobody anti-American gets heard because EVERYBODY doesn't care. There's no question about where I'd rather be.
Of course, I can't really fault you for saying what you do, since we both know what would happen to you if you didn't hew to the party line...
Oh, yeah, there's an entire PSB division monitoring my Internet activity, and I have to wear a fucking tinfoil hat all the time to keep the mind control beams out. Give it a break, alright?
Wow, just like in the Cultural Revolution, huh?
The Cultural Revolution is what lofty ideals get you. There was zero practicality: wasting resources on the destruction of ancient objects, planting rice crops closer together to show solidarity (which caused whole crops to fail), warring groups of Red Guards -- if that's order, I have no idea what the hell this is.
those "lofty goals" as envisioned by the founding fathers have built a great society, and continue to do so.
Oh, really? How lofty is a society where everybody acts like it's a police state because they damn well don't care whether it is or not?
It's very easy to make a logical case for strong, even totalitarian government. In theory it can deliver many things that are often considered worthwhile goals, like efficient organization, reduced crime, and long-range planning.
Hell, if nothing else, it sets us apart from the animals.
Unfortunately, other worthwhile goals like individual freedom and diversity are sacrificed when you go down that road, and more often than not it's a road that you cannot easily leave.
Oh, what, like these exist in the US right now? Don't steal my trademark! Don't speak about me in an offensive manner! Don't stand up! Don't stick out! Or I'll sue! I'll prosecute!
The US is fucking anarchy, with no benefit going to the swift or the strong or the smart. It goes to those who can be the most pathetic wrecks in front of an audience. This differs from China in two ways: here, we at least have a goverment that has to pretend to care about the people at the very least, and we don't let people going around doing stupid things that are going fuck the country up.
The cunning and the brave can still win here.
hose easy wins against crime which you so appreciate do not come free, and in due course, you will regret choosing to cut down those messy rain forests to make way for efficient modern living and industrialization, to make an analogy.
I see nothing wrong with preserving the rain forests as long as you do something and don't just whine about it. And if you get rich or get laid as a benefit, more power to you.
ut they're the only things that stand between our current relative freedoms and the state-corporate totalitarianism that's just over the next hill.
Oh, please. You're never free. You're always held back by the corporations, or your peers, or the government. Nature abhors a vacuum, and power vacuums are filled damn quick. The only trick is to make sure that your side is the one that fills it. That's all there is to it.
I'm just glad that there are still people around with the personal integrity to continue the fight for lofty intangibles like freedom of the press, despite the odds against.
If they want to forfeit their power, that's fine with me. But they don't get to complain when it's too late.
How can you actually sit there and claim that China has the right idea when it comes to society?
Easily.
When it is illegal to speak against the government, you can damn well be sure that Chinese "journalists" will roll every time the police say so.
You know what the difference between the US government and the Chinese government is? The Chinese government is straight up about it. The press pretends to be objective about the little things, but anything important? The press will be there, pro-America, because that's what the people want to hear. Anything else and the paper doesn't sell. That simple.
When all you spew forth is government propoganda drek and have no opinion of your own, you don't deserve to be called a journalist.
Have you read the New York Times editorial page recently? Those works of fiction make the editorials in the China Daily seem like goddamn encyclopedia entries.
Our basic freedom here is that we are allowed to have a bloody opinion. We can say that our government is a piece of shit, and right or not we won't be killed for it.
Unless you happen be of the wrong race, or in the wrong place, or say it at the wrong time, or with the wrong people. Same as anywhere.
When the Chinese "officials" raid your home after you do something that big brother doesn't like, we'll see if you are singing the same tune, or if you actually want someone in your corner sticking up for their "lofty goals", eh?
You know why I'm not worried about this? I'm not an idiot, and I'm not going to do anything stupid. That easy. Only the stupid and the foolish get busted. Anyone intelligent and clever will be doing the busting himself soon enough.
It's a fucking meritocracy compared to the US where everything depends on how much you've got in your bank account.
The important thing to protect is that the journalist takes no part in busting them.
And why the hell not?
Sentient readers can probably see why, but you appear not to.
Oh, gee, thanks, let's start the discourse off on a reasonable level here.
it's nothing to do with condoning the actions of Crackers or these two in particular.
Well, let's see: hackers want attention. Journalists give them attention. Hackers don't want to get busted. Journalists don't get them busted.
Hm. In your world, it sure seems to me like journalists are condoning their actions. It's goddamned symbiosis if you ask me.
Simply, if journos can't use anonymous sources, pretty soon journalism will simply become the recycling of press releases.
Oh, what, and it's not already? Journalism is already a goes-to-the-highest-bidder event, and it makes me ill that it has to sacrifice an orderly society and law and order to the mere appearance that it still has any objectivity left. These people are shutting down real businesses and costing people real money all because they don't want to admit that they're just as dirty as the people they're protecting.
Well, great. To appease the legislature and the judiciary and everyone who's been jumping down their throats recently, the US Copyright Cartel has decided to make vague noises about vaporware that might kind of begin to solve all the problems that everyone's talking about. Oh boy.
Let's face it: we haven't put nearly enough pressure on these thieves and scam artists to make them cave yet, and this is going to just be more of the same SDMI-tainted, pay-per-listen, don't-you-dare-loan-it-to-your-friends drivel that I honestly can't stand anymore. If they've got something to say, they should say it, but if they don't have anything more than hand-waving, they need to shut the hell up.
I'll believe it when I see it, and even then only after they've shown me the fine print.
If there's one thing that I can't stand, it's people who live in their own idealistic little worlds and think that protest actions and their lofty goals make a damn bit of difference in this world.
I've got news for them: if they're not rich or running the government, they can take their principles and shove 'em for all the good it's going to do anyone. These kiddies are going to get busted no matter what happens (just ask Kevin Mitnick), and the only person who's going to gain anything by this is the lucky bastard who gets his job.
If Slashdot were in the same situation? Hell, it wouldn't just be acceptable for them to comply, it would be inexcusable for them not to. I've lived in China for several years now, and I think I've seen enough to say that I can really see the benefits of taking a stronger stand towards the criminal element than we do here in the States. The destructive ("hacker") proportion of the Chinese computer-using population is far lower than in the States, not even mentioning the drug-dealing and drug-using populations, and the violent criminals, and all the rest.
If you have this choice, you have one simple decision to make: your lofty goals which won't win anyone anything except another five minutes to cause mayhem and destroy others' lives and livelihoods, or the simple duty of building society, which carries its own rewards.
We have a perfect right to blast Microsoft over this. They promised time and time again to comply to the standards and they haven't.
Well, first, it's their software, and, second, what's complaining about it going to do? Why don't you take action -- make sure that others don't use the software?
They can't even claim it's not possible because IE5 for the Mac does comply.
This is an entirely different platform -- are you sure this would apply on Windows? The fact that there's such a large difference at all suggests that the codebases aren't even remotely similar.
It's a fairly obvious case where because they no longer have to compete fairly on the Windows platform they are able to apply embrace and extend to lock in the monopoly.
I don't understand what right we all have to be blasting Microsoft over this. They're well within their rights to do whatever they damn well please with Internet Explorer. If it means making incompatible with Netscape, that's fine, but nobody has any right to complain with anything but their dollars (or downloads) -- the market has spoken and said that IE is good. You can't even come up with the "leveraging a monopoly" excuse here -- if you don't want them to exploit this, don't develop to the proprietary features. It's really very simple: Microsoft isn't forcing you to do anything, and I wish everyone would stop whining like Microsoft was making them download IE at gunpoint.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I keep seeing these sentiments, and I'm getting very goddamn sick and tired of them.
So-called 'intellectual property' has very little in common with physical property, or the rights thereto appertaining.
Property is property. There's a reason that we use the same noun in both phrases.
For a crime of larceny or 'theft' to occur, several elements must be present, not the least of which is the taking from the possesion of the owner.
Must it?
The copying of music or software cannot be theft, because the 'stolen' object is still in the posession of the owner.
Wrong. The owner's power to sell his work is reduced, and its control over its distribution is reduced. Both these things have been stolen from him. How is this not theft?
I know enough free-market advocates to know that 99% of them are upper-middle class suburbanites and think that everyone is as privileged as they are.
Not at all. I live in China. If living here doesn't turn you into a free market advocate, I don't know what will.
And pretty much the whole damn country is capitalist now anyway.
You complain about government intervention, yet you use the Internet, a government-sponsered network.
That's funny, the last time I checked, I paid money to an ISP that paid money to other ISPs. I don't think I'm depending on the government here.
Actually, it's Civil Disobediance in a state where corporations have all the power.
Oh. I get it. If I don't like Wal-Mart, so I break in and steal everything in the Electronics section, that's Civil Disobediance too, right?
The Internet was designed to be used for all forms of free speech.
With "theft" included, right? Because the Internet is just one big happy hedonistic romper-room with absolutely no connection to the real world or real people, Playland for big kids, right? I'd be inclined to say that you're the one living in some insular little world here, where no one ever really needs to make money and it's ok to throw tantrums when your every whim isn't satisfied.
It's hard to do so when you're dealing with a monopolized industry, such as major record studios.
And who's supporting the monopoly? That would be you. Go do something legal like start your own studio, or educate people about the "evils" of the big ones. Don't go doing the Internet equivalent of rioting and looting because you can't be bothered to shell out for a CD.
"IP theft" is an oxymoron.
Ignorance is bliss, huh?
Only if that's what your will said. It was your every right to sell the rights to someone else for whatever you could get -- and would you do that if they expire after you die?
please explain to the class the meaning of the word "license" in a completely government-free economy? and exactly how it would be enforced?
Ok, if you want to take what I said to extremes, in a total anarchy, "license" means "what you can do before the corporation torches your house / assassinates you / etc."
come on - no one (re: very few) really wants the government out of the economy; people just want to make sure that the government benefits them more than the other guy.
This is the problem: the government never will benefit one guy more than the other. So they should stick to their basic role of providing national defense, enforcing property rights, keeping people from rioting / looting / killing on a daily basis, etc.
Part of the "enforcing property rights" bit above is also enforcing intellectual property rights (though I agree that it would be better to have corporations do this themselves). This means making sure that if you create something, you have sole license to exploit it. I cannot understand any possible reason to let things lapse into the "public domain" -- you created it, why does the government have to take it away from you? It's criminal.
Fairer system? What are you talking about? There's something called a market economy that you're dealing with here, and the only way that you could possibly make it fairer is to take the damn government out of it completely.
What could be fairer than this: they have a commodity. They want a price for that commodity. They don't force you to pay that price. If you want it enough, you pay, and if you don't, you don't pay. It's very simple. If they start charging more and more for their product, well, that's what the market will bear, and if people are willing to pay that much, then they have no right to complain about high prices.
In short: a price becomes too high or a license becomes unacceptable the second you decide that access to the product (or intellectual property) isn't worth adhering to the license or paying the price. Complaining while still buying and using what you're complaining about is sheer hypocrisy. Breaking the law to obtain access to whatever you're not willing to pay for is downright criminal and should be punished harshly. They don't let you go into Tower Records and tape CD's out of the listening stations, why should the Internet be any different?
In short: if the industry's terms are unacceptable, don't deal with the industry. Theft is not an acceptable solution (it should, in fact, be punished very harshly). Clear enough?
Ok, I come back, and I find that my post's been marked down as a troll. What gives? Can somebody here use more than one goddamned word ("troll") to explain this to me?
If I'm wrong, tell me, but I'll be damned if I'm going to listen to you if you don't also tell me why.
he US is not an anarchy nor anything remotely approaching it. The US is an inefficient corporate totalitarianism,
Point taken.
Unfortunately that inefficiency is rapidly disappearing because it gives corporatism headaches and so laws are being adjusted to streamline corporate controls.
If I'm against "Them", I would much rather have a government that has to pretend to care about me than a corporation that has no such obligations or conceits. If I'm with "Them", I'd choose a government as well -- they're far less fickle. What's there to prefer about corporations?
Then you'd see "benefit going to the swift or the strong or the smart", as you put it, assuming that you were talking about individuals.
I am talking about individuals. No anarchy will survive for long, though -- somebody will fill the power vacuum.
However, people who do stupid things to prop up whatever principles they hold are going to lose no matter what the system -- the question is only how quickly and how much damage they will inflict to everyone around them along the way.
Learn and think about terms before repeating state political rhetoric.
Oh, good, and close with the low blow. Nice touch there.
"all the rest" includes religious movements which are "enemies of the state",
Let's face it: if you know which way the wind is blowing, why the hell are you going to protest right outside the goddamn Great Hall of the People? And when the media barely gives you any coverage any more? If you're going to do unpopular activities, don't flaunt them in front of the authorities.
This applies in the United States too, by the way.
or students that peacefully demonstrate for democracy and their inalienable rights as human beings
Inalienable rights? You don't have nearly as many as you think you have. You've got exactly as many rights as you can get for yourself. I'm not saying be cruel or malicious -- that's just stupid -- but if you're soft you're just begging to be taken advantage of. Ever go to a self-defense class? Number 1 rule: don't look like a victim! Because if you do, you'll be one soon enough.
or anyone that dares to think for themselves and say what they really think.
In China, nobody anti-government gets heard because (a) most of them don't care, and (b) the government doesn't like that sort of thing (who does?). In the States, nobody anti-American gets heard because EVERYBODY doesn't care. There's no question about where I'd rather be.
Of course, I can't really fault you for saying what you do, since we both know what would happen to you if you didn't hew to the party line...
Oh, yeah, there's an entire PSB division monitoring my Internet activity, and I have to wear a fucking tinfoil hat all the time to keep the mind control beams out. Give it a break, alright?
Wow, just like in the Cultural Revolution, huh?
The Cultural Revolution is what lofty ideals get you. There was zero practicality: wasting resources on the destruction of ancient objects, planting rice crops closer together to show solidarity (which caused whole crops to fail), warring groups of Red Guards -- if that's order, I have no idea what the hell this is.
those "lofty goals" as envisioned by the founding fathers have built a great society, and continue to do so.
Oh, really? How lofty is a society where everybody acts like it's a police state because they damn well don't care whether it is or not?
It's not as simple as you portray.
Nothing's ever simple.
It's very easy to make a logical case for strong, even totalitarian government. In theory it can deliver many things that are often considered worthwhile goals, like efficient organization, reduced crime, and long-range planning.
Hell, if nothing else, it sets us apart from the animals.
Unfortunately, other worthwhile goals like individual freedom and diversity are sacrificed when you go down that road, and more often than not it's a road that you cannot easily leave.
Oh, what, like these exist in the US right now? Don't steal my trademark! Don't speak about me in an offensive manner! Don't stand up! Don't stick out! Or I'll sue! I'll prosecute!
The US is fucking anarchy, with no benefit going to the swift or the strong or the smart. It goes to those who can be the most pathetic wrecks in front of an audience. This differs from China in two ways: here, we at least have a goverment that has to pretend to care about the people at the very least, and we don't let people going around doing stupid things that are going fuck the country up.
The cunning and the brave can still win here.
hose easy wins against crime which you so appreciate do not come free, and in due course, you will regret choosing to cut down those messy rain forests to make way for efficient modern living and industrialization, to make an analogy.
I see nothing wrong with preserving the rain forests as long as you do something and don't just whine about it. And if you get rich or get laid as a benefit, more power to you.
ut they're the only things that stand between our current relative freedoms and the state-corporate totalitarianism that's just over the next hill.
Oh, please. You're never free. You're always held back by the corporations, or your peers, or the government. Nature abhors a vacuum, and power vacuums are filled damn quick. The only trick is to make sure that your side is the one that fills it. That's all there is to it.
I'm just glad that there are still people around with the personal integrity to continue the fight for lofty intangibles like freedom of the press, despite the odds against.
If they want to forfeit their power, that's fine with me. But they don't get to complain when it's too late.
How can you actually sit there and claim that China has the right idea when it comes to society?
Easily.
When it is illegal to speak against the government, you can damn well be sure that Chinese "journalists" will roll every time the police say so.
You know what the difference between the US government and the Chinese government is? The Chinese government is straight up about it. The press pretends to be objective about the little things, but anything important? The press will be there, pro-America, because that's what the people want to hear. Anything else and the paper doesn't sell. That simple.
When all you spew forth is government propoganda drek and have no opinion of your own, you don't deserve to be called a journalist.
Have you read the New York Times editorial page recently? Those works of fiction make the editorials in the China Daily seem like goddamn encyclopedia entries.
Our basic freedom here is that we are allowed to have a bloody opinion. We can say that our government is a piece of shit, and right or not we won't be killed for it.
Unless you happen be of the wrong race, or in the wrong place, or say it at the wrong time, or with the wrong people. Same as anywhere.
When the Chinese "officials" raid your home after you do something that big brother doesn't like, we'll see if you are singing the same tune, or if you actually want someone in your corner sticking up for their "lofty goals", eh?
You know why I'm not worried about this? I'm not an idiot, and I'm not going to do anything stupid. That easy. Only the stupid and the foolish get busted. Anyone intelligent and clever will be doing the busting himself soon enough.
It's a fucking meritocracy compared to the US where everything depends on how much you've got in your bank account.
The important thing to protect is that the journalist takes no part in busting them.
And why the hell not?
Sentient readers can probably see why, but you appear not to.
Oh, gee, thanks, let's start the discourse off on a reasonable level here.
it's nothing to do with condoning the actions of Crackers or these two in particular.
Well, let's see: hackers want attention. Journalists give them attention. Hackers don't want to get busted. Journalists don't get them busted.
Hm. In your world, it sure seems to me like journalists are condoning their actions. It's goddamned symbiosis if you ask me.
Simply, if journos can't use anonymous sources, pretty soon journalism will simply become the recycling of press releases.
Oh, what, and it's not already? Journalism is already a goes-to-the-highest-bidder event, and it makes me ill that it has to sacrifice an orderly society and law and order to the mere appearance that it still has any objectivity left. These people are shutting down real businesses and costing people real money all because they don't want to admit that they're just as dirty as the people they're protecting.
Well, great. To appease the legislature and the judiciary and everyone who's been jumping down their throats recently, the US Copyright Cartel has decided to make vague noises about vaporware that might kind of begin to solve all the problems that everyone's talking about. Oh boy.
Let's face it: we haven't put nearly enough pressure on these thieves and scam artists to make them cave yet, and this is going to just be more of the same SDMI-tainted, pay-per-listen, don't-you-dare-loan-it-to-your-friends drivel that I honestly can't stand anymore. If they've got something to say, they should say it, but if they don't have anything more than hand-waving, they need to shut the hell up.
I'll believe it when I see it, and even then only after they've shown me the fine print.
If there's one thing that I can't stand, it's people who live in their own idealistic little worlds and think that protest actions and their lofty goals make a damn bit of difference in this world.
I've got news for them: if they're not rich or running the government, they can take their principles and shove 'em for all the good it's going to do anyone. These kiddies are going to get busted no matter what happens (just ask Kevin Mitnick), and the only person who's going to gain anything by this is the lucky bastard who gets his job.
If Slashdot were in the same situation? Hell, it wouldn't just be acceptable for them to comply, it would be inexcusable for them not to. I've lived in China for several years now, and I think I've seen enough to say that I can really see the benefits of taking a stronger stand towards the criminal element than we do here in the States. The destructive ("hacker") proportion of the Chinese computer-using population is far lower than in the States, not even mentioning the drug-dealing and drug-using populations, and the violent criminals, and all the rest.
If you have this choice, you have one simple decision to make: your lofty goals which won't win anyone anything except another five minutes to cause mayhem and destroy others' lives and livelihoods, or the simple duty of building society, which carries its own rewards.
And this Forbes idiot chose wrong.
but what if the web browser that a majority of the people out there used didn't support those standards?
Simple. Treat it as the de facto standard, and code your browser to work like it.
You would be forced to design in such a way that the browser would actually work.
This is the fault of both browsers, not just one. It takes two to disagree on protocols.
they scare the stockholders into thinking that if they don't use IE they won't succeed
I'm actually really curious: how does Microsoft accomplish this? I understand your logic from that point on, but I'm not making this leap.
We have a perfect right to blast Microsoft over this. They promised time and time again to comply to the standards and they haven't.
Well, first, it's their software, and, second, what's complaining about it going to do? Why don't you take action -- make sure that others don't use the software?
They can't even claim it's not possible because IE5 for the Mac does comply.
This is an entirely different platform -- are you sure this would apply on Windows? The fact that there's such a large difference at all suggests that the codebases aren't even remotely similar.
It's a fairly obvious case where because they no longer have to compete fairly on the Windows platform they are able to apply embrace and extend to lock in the monopoly.
What keeps Mozilla from adopting these features?
I don't understand what right we all have to be blasting Microsoft over this. They're well within their rights to do whatever they damn well please with Internet Explorer. If it means making incompatible with Netscape, that's fine, but nobody has any right to complain with anything but their dollars (or downloads) -- the market has spoken and said that IE is good. You can't even come up with the "leveraging a monopoly" excuse here -- if you don't want them to exploit this, don't develop to the proprietary features. It's really very simple: Microsoft isn't forcing you to do anything, and I wish everyone would stop whining like Microsoft was making them download IE at gunpoint.