You are generally very level headed, but your war with FireFox users is tiring.

The Fanboys are only a segment of FF users. I'm not at war with FF users. I never was.

If you think the future of the internet is best decided by a committee of unelected computer-nerds (W3C), rather than the wishes and desires of billions of internet users (market forces)...

Standards commitees have always been a part of the internet. TCP/IP was standardized with no input from "market forces".

Danny, Open Source Software has made things like your website possible. There are lots of really smart people out there that brought us Linux, Apache, mySQL, and PHP, to name just a few.

Even IE can trace its origins back to an early form of Open Source Software. Many OSS people have very strong feelings about freedom and what they see as rampant commercialism. Obviously your mind is made up and you believe the "right to make money" trumps all. Others think you are just as wrong as you think they are.

Painting all people with strong opinions against commercialism with such a broad brush is (hopefully) beneath even your level of intellect.

strong opinions tend to fire up the discussion and make people reply with clearer and smarter arguments.

But I will not bother... You are just being silly addressing your anger to 1% of FF users. I might do the same for IE users and be equally right.

Good luck with your crusade!

I'm not at war with FF users. I never was.

You started one when you blocked their browser.

If you think the future of the internet is best decided by a committee of unelected computer-nerds (W3C), rather than the wishes and desires of billions of internet users (market forces)... ...you might be a FF Fanboy.

I just thought that I'd provide a small sample of the companies around the world that think that this "committee of unelected computer-nerds" should decide the future of the Internet. I'm assuming that since you think that inclusion is endorsement, that actually paying money for membership to this "committe of unelected computer-nerds" is probably much more than endorsement.

Let's start with schools shall we? California State, Duke, George Washington University, Oxford Brookes University, oh yea, and Standford.

Of course, they're all schools. Full of know-nothing kids right? Maybe government will satisfy you? The Office of the Government Chief Information Officer is a member. Los Alamos National Labs. Bunch of nerds there. Oh yea, and can't forget the Department of Homeland Security.

What's that you say? What does goverment know about technology? OK, let's look at tech companies. There's just some small ones out there. Adobe (they make Flash), AT&T, RIM, Canon, Google, Go Daddy, HP, IBM, Motorola, Nokia, RealNetworks (they make the Real Media Player), and let's not forget Yahoo!.

None of them make browsers you say? Gosh, that's true. Let's look at browser makers. I think we can agree that the major browsers out there are Opera, Netscape, Safari, Firefox, and of course, Internet Explorer. Let's see, Opera. Yep, they're a member of the W3C. Netscape? Yep, AOL is a member. Safari? Sure enough, Apple is a member. Firefox? Affirmative, Mozilla is a member of the W3C. All that leaves is Internet Explorer. What's this? Yes, that's right, Microsoft is a member too.

Apparently, there are a lot of people that think that "the future of the internet is best decided by a committee of unelected computer-nerds". Microsoft included.

You can go to http://www.w3.org/cConsortium/Member/List to see the 400+ world wide members if you have any problem with the list I've given you.

I just thought that I'd provide a small sample of the companies around the world that think that this "committee of unelected computer-nerds" should decide the future of the Internet. I'm assuming that since you think that inclusion is endorsement, that actually paying money for membership to this "committe of unelected computer-nerds" is probably much more than endorsement.

Let's start with schools shall we? California State, Duke, George Washington University, Oxford Brookes University, oh yea, and Standford.

Big whoop. Socialist took over all the Ivy League colleges decades ago. Socialists like the concept of oligarchies, because they can never maintain power in a true Democracy.

Of course, they're all schools. Full of know-nothing kids right? Maybe government will satisfy you? The Office of the Government Chief Information Officer is a member. Los Alamos National Labs. Bunch of nerds there. Oh yea, and can't forget the Department of Homeland Security.

From the W3C FAQ: "Any entity that can sign the Membership Agreement can become a Member." So membership doesn't necessarily denote involvement. Apparently I could sign my cat up to be a member.

What's that you say? What does goverment know about technology? OK, let's look at tech companies. There's just some small ones out there. Adobe (they make Flash), AT&T, RIM, Canon, Google, Go Daddy, HP, IBM, Motorola, Nokia, RealNetworks (they make the Real Media Player), and let's not forget Yahoo!.

PR. It looks good to be listed as a member, but that doesn't change the fact that W3C is painfully slow in incorporating market demands into their standards. 

None of them make browsers you say? Gosh, that's true. Let's look at browser makers. I think we can agree that the major browsers out there are Opera, Netscape, Safari, Firefox, and of course, Internet Explorer. Let's see, Opera. Yep, they're a member of the W3C. Netscape? Yep, AOL is a member. Safari? Sure enough, Apple is a member. Firefox? Affirmative, Mozilla is a member of the W3C. All that leaves is Internet Explorer. What's this? Yes, that's right, Microsoft is a member too.

Yet they don't follow the W3C guidelines. So what's the big deal about membership?

Apparently, there are a lot of people that think that "the future of the internet is best decided by a committee of unelected computer-nerds". Microsoft included.

If they did, they'd follow W3C guidelines, and they don't. 

You can go to http://www.w3.org/cConsortium/Member/List to see the 400+ world wide members if you have any problem with the list I've given you.

I would find a list of people who want the PR boost by having their names listed, but not a list of people or groups who actually make the guidelines the W3C come out with.

Standards commitees have always been a part of the internet. TCP/IP was standardized with no input from "market forces".

Doesn't mean they need to perpetually dictate standards when business are showing much more versatility when adapting to consumer needs.

Danny, Open Source Software has made things like your website possible. There are lots of really smart people out there that brought us Linux, Apache, mySQL, and PHP, to name just a few.

Linux is a clone of Unix, which was never open source, it was a commercial development of Bell Labs. Apache was developed before there was any reasonable marketing potential to the internet, just a lot of eager people. there are commercial versions of all of them that are used as much if not more, and are as dependable, if not more. 

Even IE can trace its origins back to an early form of Open Source Software. 

The history if anything can be traced back to something that at one time was free. It's not a very lucid point.

Many OSS people have very strong feelings about freedom and what they see as rampant commercialism. 

Socialist generally do. Funny they don;t seem to mind collecting paychecks, themselves.

Obviously your mind is made up and you believe the "right to make money" trumps all. Others think you are just as wrong as you think they are.

Right and wrong are not determined by a majority vote.

Painting all people with strong opinions against commercialism with such a broad brush is (hopefully) beneath even your level of intellect.

No, it's seeing things for what they are.

On thing you're remarkably good at. Denying what's right in front of you. I can see where being listed on that page would be considered good PR. I don't know why Microsoft would want to go out of their way to be listed on a page of unelected computer-nerds. Maybe something a little less visible. Try going to Microsoft.com, and doing a view source. Check out the first line.

It's interesting for a company that doesn't support the W3C. I guess it's not all that surprising, when you look at the first line of code on this page.

Exactly why do you include it if you think that the W3C shouldn't have any say? Seems a tad bit hypocritical.

I am curious as to why market forces should dictate a system that was not intended for market use in the first place. Are market forces actually fair on an informational network that can be used to spread information to those who might not have had access to it in the first place? When market forces take over completely then those with the most money will be granted the most information. I know this sounds a bit socialist, but it's a bit unfair considering a lot of the original internet development took place from University or tax-payer dollars. Market forces align with discarding internet neutrality. The market is not a form of democracy, but is instead a way of rewarding those with more shares in the market more access. While this is desirable when selling say cars or electronics it is undesirable when it prevents access to an educational or development tool.

Right and wrong are not determined by a majority vote.

I never suggested self righteousness and reason could co-exist. Danny, for the record, your website runs on Linux, correct? I believe you will find that Linux runs on more web servers than IIS. And you know why. It's free. Surely you're not suggesting all those people running LAMP websites (including yourself) are "socialists"?