Apple is a hardware company and the hardware is where the profit is made? Interesting. Funny that this does not work out so well for Dell, HP, et al. Apple is a hardware AND software company. Why is this so hard for people to understand? I suppose it is part of the bad faith anti-Apple meme that they just sell overpriced hardware, and you can buy a computer with the same specs for half the price from the PC OEMs etc. etc. But the fact is that Apple is about the INTEGRATION of hardware and software. Whatever you think of the Daring Fireball guy, at least he is right about this: that the NEXT OS was one of Job's key achievements (as a CEO not a programmer, of course!) and it is impossible to understand the success of Apple after its acquisition of NEXT without seeing the contribution of that OS and its iterations and derivatives (iOS). Maybe Apple don't care that you put Linux on their computer, but the fact of the matter is that it is your use of the Mac OS that is going to keep you coming back to buy Apple hardware. 1) The software has to work - and well - for the average consumer to make repeat or multiple purchases. 2) Jobs was all about lock-in, sure. But most of that lock-in was via the software. Remember he didn't even want to make iTunes for the PC and only did it against his better judgement after a revolt of his employees. Why could that be? Think about it. Talk to the average Apple fan about their computer. Yes, they like the build quality etc., but they'll also RAVE about why they adore OS X Lion or whatever and why it is superior to the Windows. They will NOT tell you in significant numbers - apart from the few freaks who buy Apples and wipe it with Windows - well I don't care about the OS, I just bought it for the shiny hardware. The retina displays and all that are cool, but it is the butter-like smoothness of a Unix-derived operating system that gets no viruses and is so intuitive it seems to think for you that the OS X fans like to enthuse over most of all. Otherwise, they would just buy a Dell.

OK jedidiah, now can you please explain what the distinction between a "natural" and "artificial" right is? Why is personal property a "natural" right? How do you define "personal property"? Please explain to us how these are not what you call legal fictions, without using an appeal to authority in your answer (e.g. because it says so in the Constitution! Because John Locke wrote that in his big book!).

I agree that coming at this problem from the side of the user is not only blaming the victim but is ineffective. However, to understand why this is so I think that we need to consider human psychology. Why is that most people continue to use weak passwords, even though all but the lowest of the "low information" users understand the supposed importance of internet security? I assume that it is because they or their circle have not been victims of online identity theft. Until that happens to them, they will continue to use the weak passwords. Why bother with something complicated like a complex and difficult-to-remember password string when there don't seem to be any consequences? If online identity theft with significant monetary or professional consequences becomes sufficiently widespread, you will find that people will suddenly become interested in online security. At that point, however, I am sure that users will clamor for improved security measures on the corporate/server side. At that point, something like a security code of conduct might be appropriate. Corporations would clearly declare that they were following X security practices or adhering to Y set of standards for online security. Getting Joe123 to change his password from password123 to 8}0_(|5-'23a1_E_2_-! is not going to happen.