It's not really pro- or anti-patent, unless you believe the absence of patents would cause most companies to resort to trade secrets, in which case, it's a pro-patent notion.

One of the main purposes of the patent system (aside from royalties) is to document innovations for the public benefit. Of course, this holds more value for things like a schematic to build a steam engine versus more trivial things like design patents.

It is more difficult to stand on the shoulders of giants if none of them come out in public.

On the other hand, if you believe that many modern technologies and standards would be open anyways, the statement is patent-neutral.

No, the situation we are in is the result of a House and Senate with a 90%+ re-election rate despite a 13% approval rating.

The message sent by this is that congressmen can do whatever they like, as they're going to get re-elected no matter how much they work against the public's interests.. It also makes bribery (via gifts, campaign contributions, and lucrative jobs upon leaving office) quite affordable.

No. As opposed to Alex Miller, Eduardo Hamilton, or Carlo Poliak

I must say, though, it was quite amusing that "None of these" got 10% of the vote.

That's only if "people" mean George, Abraham, Alexander, Andrew, Ulysses, and Benjamin.

It's interesting you brought that up, because I think a similar analogy is necessary.

While most people do not (and should not) ever try to do advanced mechanic tasks like change out a transmission on their car, it is useful for people to understand basics like rotating tires and changing oil. Similarly with programming, I would not expect most people to pick up programming to the point where they can code up an OS, compiler, or even a typical SOA system. However, giving someone the tools to fiddle around with basic programming like static web pages with a little javascript or simple command-line applications to handle input from a user or a data file and spit out usable information can enhance their hobbies or even non-IT work.

Many people who became programmers after starting in some other field (either in school or the workplace) can recall situations where they used programming to aid in some aspect of their pre-IT life. There's no reason to shut the door for anyone else to do so.

There are still several other top causes of death to tackle. Cancer (#2) is a good one, and it's only barely behind heart disease.

For comparison, 9/11 would have to happen once a month to crack the top 10 and weekly to hit the top 5.

Why are you holding up the fact that you're willingly following con-men as a badge of honor?

Also, you're wrong. Both parties run long cons *and* short cons. The short cons differ from party to party, but the long con is shared.

According to the parent page, the chart for per-pupil spending is already adjusted for inflation. As such, the $4,221 per student figure in 1969 looks to be close to the truth, except that it's *already* adjusted for inflation at that value.

As much as I would like to have a simple explanation like "spending is less than half what it used to be", the numbers don't lie.

Sure we do. It's called management.

A 9/11 event would have to happen twice a week or more to crack the top 5 causes of death in the US. Why is it so important to give up on fundamental freedoms (i.e. the 4th Amendment)? Does it seem more or less important to you after considering that by the NSA's own admission, not a single terrorist has been caught or a citizen's life saved by this surveillance?

This mentality makes me sad. More people will pay money to vote for an American Idol candidate on their own time than will vote for free in a presidential election with legally-mandated free time off work to do so.

It's no wonder that our government is so screwed up.