Indeed. Why would I want one of your silly "microwaves" when I can go to restaurants. It'll never take off.

How much more do you think we have to give them before they've gotten all they deserve for work that was largely completed 12 years ago? Setting aside your attachment to the "hate the game not the player" perspective. How much before we can with integrity say "You've been more than fairly compensated, and the whole world needs this, so we're letting them do what they need with it."

Does greed have a boundary? Do you just encourage them to continue forever?

Your position is really out there, you know that?

Cars cost more because they are naturally scarce. Every one you make takes time and effort and resources.

Once software is made, it is trivial to make enough for everyone. Every person who could be advantaged by it but isn't is another example of waste and inefficiency.

If you can sit in a room, look at your creation, destroy its capacity to enrich the human experience just out of a spiteful desire to render it scarce when it doesn't have to be, and not be wracked with guilt at what you've done... frankly, you're a monster and have no fucking soul.

No one is suggesting that Microsoft should be compelled to do anything they don't want to do. If they don't want to support it, they don't have to. Just let them do it themselves.

I used to have a No Fear shirt when I was younger that said "Lead, Follow, or Get The Fuck Out Of The Way".

Microsoft and everyone else who uses "Intellectual Property" laws in their business is guilty of the greatest possible sin. They stand in the way of people helping themselves.

Don't, then. Let other people live, you just sit there on a lump and grow moss.

I don't see anyone asking you to invent better candles. I just see you asking the world at large to be your goon squad and enforce your right to be "The Candle Guy". Where is our reward? Don't say "my innovation", there is abundant evidence that need causes parallel development, that the answer to the question is right there in the problem for anyone to see, and that you are not a special sort of genius who needs to be won over at all cost.

No, rational beings pursue excellence in everything they do, because excellence is habit forming, and recognition is emotionally gratifying. You never know what threats tomorrow will bring, the rational thing is to pursue excellence in everything you do regardless of compensation and try to be respected so you have allies against future misfortune.

My ideology has brought me to achieve great things, be elected to positions of authority in projects that enriched my life, that of my loved ones, and that of my community. Aside from my terrible taste in women, I'm the living embodiment of both my childhood dreams and my values.

That's a ridiculous statement. Russia were the first ones to space. Their contributions to science and engineering, literature and philosophy are among the finest of any nation on Earth. Americans can't even get to the ISS without their help.

And Cuba have been thumbing their nose at you and producing a proud culture that is largely self sufficient, has some of the finest medical and dental professionals on the planet and have multiple cultural exports such as cuisine, dance and music. You contribute Big Mac's, Twerking and Lady Gaga.

Frankly, the only reason the US has any success to speak of is the fact that they corrupted foreign officials into accepting their monopoly on printing worthless fiat currency. You're bandits and thieves. Your manufacturing base is not at all respectable. You don't compete to elevate the best man, you compete to subjugate anyone and everyone you can. You are the Prison Culture, locking up more people than China despite their population dwarfing yours. More wasted resources, caused by a system that is unsuited to humanity. You are not efficient, you are wasteful. Despite all that you steal, your population still has poverty. Despite all the communications technology that floods from the four corners of the earth to your shitty country, you still have people kept uninformed as to what the hell is going on.

You couldn't wish for a worse neighbour. So, I say to you, fuck the candles. Sit down and grow moss.

"The Joint Stock Companies Act 1844 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that expanded access to the incorporation of joint-stock companies.

Before the Act, incorporation was possible only by royal charter or private bill and was limited owing to Parliament's jealous protection of the privileges and advantages thereby granted."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

Prior to this Act, companies were governed by the Bubble Act of 1720. They had a charter given to them by the nation. They earned profits, ridiculous profits, but they were a governmental entity responsible for enriching the nation at the expense of other nations, in the same way that a non-profit earns profits but reinvests them in the pursuit of the company charter rather than paying out to shareholders. This was the time of Mercantilism, not Capitalism.

In the USA, forming each individual corporation required a separate act of legislation until New Jersey adopted an "enabling" corporate law, with the goal of attracting more business to the state in 1896. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow. States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. And, if you broke the rules, you didn't get a fine, the company had its charter revoked.

In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this power by overruling a lower court’s decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. This was done on the basis that the charter was a contract between the King and the College, and that it violated the Constitution to pass laws to invalidate a contract. The US was no longer a part of the Commonwealth at this time, but that was deemed non-relevant to the contract.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

That decision was the beginning of the modern corporation. This was when they moved beyond the control of democratic processes, were relieved of any duty to serve humanity and became all about contracts and shareholders and their duty became empowering the shareholders above all other concerns.

People who think science is the right tool for every problem domain are not as smart as they think they are.

We don't live in a world where most people are illiterate and working 60 hour weeks. Someone will invent those candles just because it's fun and they have time to be bored. They'll enjoy the respect people give them for having created them, and that will be all the compensation they need. So... if you're that put off by the idea of doing anything useful unless you have a "competitive advantage" over your peers, frankly, it will cost us nothing if you decide to go sit on a tree stump until moss grows on you. Why the hell should we care to be your enforcers?

Same way SparkFun lost those yellow multi-meters. Stop the boat at the shore, destroy all the illegal merchandise. Any idiot can manage this task. Many do.

Imagine living in a world where half the population is illiterate and the majority are required to work labor from dawn till dusk, where free time is scarce and every single moment spent pursuing "flights of fancy" instead of pursuing "real work" has a significant cost to the individuals involved.

Copyright was created for such an environment. Did quite well by us in moving beyond that way of living. Now that a high school student has access to publishing tools that will reach a global audience, it's just holding us back, but it was effective when it was created.

Though, it was patents that were responsible for unleashing innovation. Not because they enticed people to innovate, but because they gave us tools to force trade secrets to be disclosed. Patents WERE an "open source movement". That was their reason to exist. It was never to "motivate companies to compete". Hell, companies were non-profit by law back in those days, and had to justify the social good they brought to the community each year or they were dissolved. The idea of motivating them to do the duty they were given after the fact is kind of ridiculous in such a setting.

No, but they should be. Cars have ridiculous safety standards, with engineers poking their noses into everything and it hasn't prevented cars from being a success.

I don't know of a car flaw that can tank an economy, cause a nuclear disaster or cause oil to spill out into the sea. But a software flaw can do all these things.

The risk to society is too high for things to continue in this way, and there are many other qualified people who would love to shoulder the responsibility if greed pushes MS or any other company to refuse to work.

I don't think so. Full disclosure should limit liability and increase our satisfaction with our merchandise. Happy people have no need for lawyers.

Lets draw it like this: Full disclosure of the entire manufacturing process is a mandatory safety requirement that must be met before bringing any product to market.

Let everyone speak, but control the podium supply. Make podiums expensive, but give them away free to those saying what you want to be heard. Use this to control the discussion. Give the illusion that every position you think is important is supported by a rational majority and opposed by a fringe of maniacs. If a subject isn't important to your agenda but is contentious, keep it constantly in the public sphere and use it to keep people divided against each other. Say as little as you can yourself.

That's what it means to be English.

I think having social structures to subsidize the healthy development of nuclear families is important, and have always been happy to pay more taxes than my married peers without complaint. That is what marriage is there for.
 
But there are a group of sexual deviants who aren't content to simply be left to enjoy their perversions without interference. No, they want to steal those resources that have been set aside for the future and use them to fuel more decadence. And, Mozilla are standing in solidarity with them.

They crossed the line from "outsider" to "aggressor" when they did that.

You know what the general problem with society today is? The strong and the fit gave considerations to the weak and unfit because they have compassion and wanted the weak and unfit to still be able to live with dignity and security. But, somewhere along the way, the weak and unfit forgot that these considerations were given compassionately, and came to actually believe that THEY were the strong and the fit.

It's about time that was rectified.

Personally, I find it very amusing that you're having serious discussions about the ethics of long distance space missions when you can't even get their astronauts to ISS without the Russians, and you're imposing sanctions on them this very moment.
 
Not real sanctions, more like those really annoying passive aggressive types that you tell them to do something, they give you the finger, then they go do it while muttering under their breath.
 
The US is a joke.