Patents have two components, spreading risk, and creating profits. The first is necessary to foster innovation, the 2nd should be a very small priority. Here's why. If we're going to do the hypocritical hand wringing that usually benefits rich people, then we should also worry about risk minimization for small inventors. What does lowering risk for small entrepeneurs look like? Here's what stops me from starting a software company (not patents, that's for sure):
1. If I fail, I won't be able to afford health insurance, which given my health problems, isn't acceptable
2. I I fail, being a person of modest means, means I may not be able to afford basic necessities (food, shelter, etc.)
3. I I fail, unlike a corporation, I have very little bankruptcy protection. I can't discharge my personal debts (which is the majority of debt for small entrepeneurs), and as a result I could lose everything I own. Contrast that with large corporations where risk is neatly partitioned into the business, and the wealthy investor can easily live off their considerable wealth while waiting for another opportunity
4. I I succeed, I have much greater risk due to limited resources.

Given that the above applies to 99% of us, the best way to foster innovation and competition is to remove the above barriers to competition by creating a system that absorbs risks for small entrepeneurs, who need it most.

In terms of absorbing R&D risk, there a couple of things to keep in mind. First, many IP based businesses don't do much R&D. Quite a bit of drug research is paid for by government, and then given to corporations using technology transfer, so why worry about protecting leaches? Second, patents do little to protect individual risks, and do quite a bit more to ensure outsized gains for the patents that do succeed. This tends to reward (rich) people who can afford to get a bunch of patents and see which ones work. This isn't a hard problem to solve, it's just that patents aren't about fostering innovation, so they've been kept in a state that achieves their primary purpose, rewarding extremely wealthy people.

What's a good system look like?
1. Risk is spread to all companies that use a patent
2. Companies are forced to license patents at a reasonable cost to competitors. Squeezing out competition through patents shouldn't be allowed.
3. Licensees of said patent would have their total licensing fees limited to 20% of operating costs until all R&D for patents is paid for.
4. Once R&D is paid for, patents become public domain.
5. A small amount of extra profit off a patent may be allowed before letting it expire, but this should be limited to a reasonable percentage of R&D cost, not unlimited as it currently is.
6. Companies that are very small may be allowed an exemption from the patent tax, or given a break while they get set up.
7. Companies that are significantly larger than competitors may be barred from patenting items.
8. Technology transfer from public to private domain should only happen if companies that use it are willing to pay the above 20% licensing fee until costs are covered. No more free rides on publicly funded research.

How does a company make a profit? First, competitors are going to have an extra 20% overhead, so the original company can probably sell for a lower cost in the beginning. Trade secrets and greater experience would also allow them to sell goods for a lower cost. Beyond paying operating costs, how much profit does a company need? Operational costs pay the the salaries of true innovators so massive profits aren't required. Second, the patent system shouldn't concern itself with whether or not the creator can buy a yacht. This is a publicly created system, and while we should help with risk, it's not our job to make people rich.

The next, untapped area of innovation involves workplace efficiency gains. Those gains should be at minimum split between workers and companies. Regulations should be put on salary reduction in the event of efficiency gains, so that everyone benefits.

I just went back to blockbuster, and I think their service IS better. With a store nearby, throttling isn't even an issue. I can rent nearly 2-3x as many movies per week as I could with netflix on a similar plan. I simply watch, return to store, and pick out 3 movies, and leave. Yes, it does require trips to the store (which is fairly close), but you get bluray and game rental. Also, it should be mentioned that blockbuster releases new movies at or near the date of the bluray release, while with netflix you have to wait an extra month or two due to their contracts with studios. All in all, it's a better experience, and I'm watching movies I would have waited months to see on netflix. There aren't any regrets here.

Yep, except you have to throw out the fact that the average worker is several times, in some cases, orders of magnitude more efficient and productive than they were when SS was originally created. The gains came about through better technology, longer working hours for many, less vacations, doubling the workforce by adding women, etc. So, where did all the productivity go? It certainly wasn't shared, that's for sure. It's gone to support billionaires rich enough to buy entire islands and form their own countries. It's part of why unemployment keeps rising (if people are more productive, and you are over-producing, why keep them on the payroll when you aren't paying them enough to buy their own products?).

So, no, we won't HAVE TO raise the retirement age to 150. What we really need is to remodel the economic system in a way such that gains in efficiency are returned to workers, not owners. But, that means throwing out capitalism. Once that happens, things will become even MORE efficient, by leaps and bounds. Who would stay at work 4 hours if they could get it done in two? Right now, we incentivize people to be inefficient and many of them oblige us by dragging out a couple of hours of work into an 8 hour day. No one dares to do anything about it on a large scale, because people in power love capitalism, and a 50% unemployment rate would cause massive riots. So, they allow the rabble to keep themselves busy for 8-10 hours a day, so that they are too exhausted to get into trouble. Even with all that artificial inflation of work hours we still have problems finding enough "work" for everyone.

I can tell you that the editors are extremely meticulous, with automated software that will quickly find many cases of infringment, and a strict set of rules covering copyright, proper sourcing, conflict of interest, etc. Wikipedia is not allowed in a court of law because the freedom with which they allow people to edit makes it impossible for the editorial staff to make guarantees. That said, for the average user, wikipedia's transparent editorial process and strict rules about citation makes it superior in many respects to other media, where the the editorial process can be politically driven and hidden from view. Let's not be naive guys, any form of media that is commercially driven has many potential issues. To give them a pass while lambasting wikipedia is ridiculous.

That sounds like a ridiculous attempt to sell higher education to people who have long been out of school and don't need it. It's like selling extra education to Einstein in his 40's, or an advanced degree to Newton. Seriously, do they think the guy who wrote java needs to go back to school to get a refresher course, or maybe Linus does? Who are these professionals with decades of experience that somehow need to return to the University to learn about the software that they wrote? School is a great way to learn the basics, but a terrible way to keep pace. Money has kept many out of the brightest minds away from the University, and it's a sick joke to think Universities would have something to teach people with degrees that are out in the field and working.

Think of it this way. My wife has an MD/Phd, done a 4 year residency, is the valedictorian of her 4 year college, and will have a minimum 2-3 year post doc. She will be in her late 30's, possibly early 40's, before she ever gets to use her training to actually run a lab. The training requirements keep going up, because there are people dumb enough to let the Universities act as gatekeepers for their profession. In return, the Universities profit immensely off 20,000 a year Phd's, and 40,000 a year MD's, who are still "training", despite decades of hard work. She has foreign colleagues who are even worse off. Many of the Chinese researchers are stuck working as Post Docs (for 40K a year) until they retire. So, we have people with Phd's, who officially never finish training, making less than a McDonald's manager or truck driver. In contrast, we have this wonderful situation in Computer Science where we actually get paid for our work, and where we can start earning a reasonable salary in our early 20's. This is NOT a problem that needs to be solved. It's only a problem for the Universities, who would love to find a way to cash in on our profession.

I've often wondered why employers don't bring a laptop into the interview, with a simple programming task or two, and ask the programmer to write a program that does X, with access to all available tools, the internet, etc. You'd be amazed at how many "experts" cannot do simple things like open a file, read from it, append a character to the end of each line, and print it back out. Or, do generic bubble sort (not to mention q sort or other, more advanced methods).

A small test would be a much, much better demonstration of skill than asking people about random concepts. I would say the ability to look something up, quickly comprehend it, and then apply it to a real world problem is of much more use than a guy who has memorized (but does not understand) a bunch of bullshit.

This has nothing to do with database design. It has to do with programming language design. BNF, or Backus Naur Form is basically a way of describing the syntax of a programming language in a precise way. It has nothing, zero, zip, nada, to do with database design. It's not useful for really anything outside of acadamia other than writing a compiler using bison/yacc. I've written a vrml parser, and so could answer some questions about it, but would be annoyed if I was interviewing for a LAMP position and they threw out there. I would think they were incompetent. Maybe you're thinking of BCNF, or Boise Codd Normal Form, which IS related to database design?

Uggh.. Open source resembles research science. Like research scientists, open source programmers are not purely motivated by money, but that's not the same as working for free. People that get in early get a lot of fame, consulting gigs, endorsement opportunities, book deals, and other positive externalities due to the fact that they were first. They aren't doing it for "free", and as the number of programmers increases, the chance of getting these positive side benefits goes down greatly, and as a result so does motivation. Assuming that there is going to be a never ending stream of grunts to do the work once positive externalities go away is naive.

The problem isn't that ubuntu sucks, it's quite good. The problem is that apps developers need to get paid, and as a business, they have to target the biggest platform first. They can't spread their costs over a huge population the way an OS maker can. That's not to say ubuntu won't eventually win, but let's not assume we're looking at some exponential curve with a near-term revolution. We may very well be near saturation when it comes to willingness of developers to work on open source, as much of the high profile work has been claimed, and politics makes it less likely for newcomers to get that instant fame. I expect it to be a long, slow grind.

What a shock, people actually work harder for money than they do when it's forced labor.

I should clarify, I started out 10 years ago, in a completely different economy. Still having a focused resume with a portfolio of relevant applications made the interview process MUCH easier.

1. Pick a specialty or two. Maybe you're interested in computer graphics, great, learn OpenGL, or maybe you want to work with databases, fine, learn the API's.
2. Do one or more of the following:
        a. Write a few small, relevant, open-source programs that you can show to prospective employers.
        b. Work on a few relevant open-source projects to help build networking/contacts.
        c. Do an internship and write a few small relevant programs that you can discuss during the interview, this is also good for networking
3. Have a backup plan if you can't get a job. Try to pick a specialty where, if worst comes to worse, you can sell the applications you write, maybe even starting your own business.

The above is the catch 22, no one wants to train people, especially in this economy. I got a job out of school because I learned the relevant knowledge (OpenGL) to my field, and had a portfolio of applications that I wrote outside of school. The kind of guy that is most likely to get a job is the guy that can laugh at job offers because he knows that he has all the skills necessary to write the application on his own and keep the profits for himself. Looking back on it, I think my biggest mistake was not pursuing my own business more seriously. You will always make more money if you can cut out the middle man (your employer), and run your own business. Sure, you take risks, but in this economy, EVERYTHING is risky, and it's also risky to be an expendable employee, with debt, in a low-paying entry level job.

No.

To get an idea of what Chavez has to deal with, imagine if the nutcases running the tea party were in charge, and that Fox News was every station. Imagine Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh multipied by about 100x. Imagine that they not only advocated overthrowing the government, but actually put those words into action in an unsuccessful coup attempt. They cooperated with the military and helped promote the transition to a new government before Chavez's followers put him back into office. In the US, they wouldn't be alive after something like that. It would be called treason and they would be hung. We would hang them, and then we would go on to talk about how repressive other societies are. In Venezuela, the wealthy have so much power that he had little choice but to let them continue for another 8 years until their licenses ran out. To describe the situation as a power hungry dictator ruling with an iron fist is just bonkers.

Agreed. That is not fast, at all. I think I've thrown together machines faster than that in the excitement of getting new hardware up and running. I think it would be more impressive if they were required to get them to boot, not to mention small details like hooking up the power and reset buttons, etc.