Quite the contrary. Employers are able to find good workers for a reasonable price and the government is saying no.

They want to work for free but the gov says no. It's sensible, because stopping people from working for too little avoids races to the bottom and makes sure everyone gets paid enough (which in turn ensures that the economy keeps moving).

Free trade, by definition, is mutually beneficial to both parties.

Only in a simple and sterile world where everything is linear. In truth, it is easy to find examples of free trades that do not benefit anyone. Like the addict and the heroin dealer, both sinking deeper into tragedy as a result of their (free) trade.

Not to mention the insane amount of paid time off many Europeans get.

What is insane is how little paid time off people get in the US. I am sure most americans would love to have a decent break every now and then without having to fear that the job is gone when they are back.

In fact, without having to fear.

you've correctly identified that the straw "greedy suit" is rational to make the "it's on a computer" argument, but the "it's on a computer argument" is still not rational.

Rational argument can't happen in isolation. It needs axioms to be based upon, and if you choose axioms properly, "software must be patentable because it makes lawyers rich" can be a perfectly rational and logical argument.

No, this is a political issue, and one of values. It is about the choice of axioms.

But perhaps this is all too subtle for you.

It's fine and defensible to oppose (or support) patents, but the "when it is about software, particularly so" is just a geek engaging in irrational thinking.

No, it is entirely rational to fight something you don't want.

The chemists, for example, seem to be ok with a world ruled by lawyers, or where, after having a good idea, you end up owing someone a shipload of money just because someone has a patent on it. The chemists can get it unlubed in the if they are ok with that. It seems they are a spineless bunch.

[...]irrational thinking. The same way the suit rubbing his hands together in greed because "it's on a computer" is.

Perhaps your idea of what is "rational" is severly limited and crooked. Here is your mistake: that greedy suit is being rational, because the "it's on a computer" is just an argument he uses for his own self interest. Just like that incredibly narcistic "why should I think if i don't get to become rich for some stupid idea" line. The point that should matter is that he or she is a greedy asshole that wants to take your money away, wants to enslave you, and deserves something entirely different from being rich and successful. What is important is that he or she must be stopped.

That whole line with "being rational", especially when the arguments are as stupid as they are when people favour patents, is quite often just a smokescreen and a maneuver to make you think in a way someone else wants.

Why should, say, the marching cubes algorithm, which transforms bitmap data into polygonal surface data, not be worthy of a patent when the set of instructions for turning bauxite into aluminum is? Because one uses a silicon chip and electricity and the other uses a pressure vessel and electricity?

Because I don't want it to be patentable. I find patents ugly, inhuman, and perverse. They make thinking dangerous. When it is about software, particularily so.

I have a say in this matter, however small it may be, and I don't want algorithms to be patentable.

This guy has led one fucked up life... it's a wonder he's still alive today.

That previous life also explains why he managed to keep calm. Compared to his experiences from the 70s that episode in belize was a walk in the park.

Science is nothing without replication.

It is sort of funny in an unsettling way that commenters got worked up about that, and not about

every grant must benefit 'national defense'

which truly sounds batshit crazy. I'd expect that of an Iranian or Norky minister, but not of someone overseeing research funding in a civilized country.

Facebook doesn't have the staff to take complaints from a billion users. It has less than 5000 employees. So it would be abuse of lack of power? They make a few dollars per account per year. 1 15 min phone call wipes out any chance of making a profit from an account.

So they get to make that profit but without any responsibility? That can't work.

If they can't do it properly they should not be doing it at all.

Here is a nice article that includes a historical writeup by Evgeny Morozov on how the concepts of Open Source and Free Software ended up meaning something different (and fas less interesting and progressive) than initially. Warning: It is a long read.

The regulators requires that money laundering is kept in check.

Which, frankly, is a good thing.

BitCoin prevents that and therefore, among other reasons, it will become increasingly difficult to exchange bitcoin and the established currencies.

Maybe, maybe not.

To be freely tradable this kind of financial product (let's stop that ridiculous "currency" bullshit) requires some type of legal framework that isn't available. If it ever gets it, you could trade bitcoins as easily as shares. But as it stands, and aside from money laundring issues, you could as well prosecute bitcoin trading on the grounds that it is illegal gambling.

Of course, a sound legal framework for bitcoins would most likely make them pointless.

But imagine how much it would have changed if it had been floating like today.

I don't understand what your point is. But just in case, a floating fiat currency can be used to effectively combat deflation, which is significantly more damaging than inflation.

I would add that on the gold standard, it also fluctuated less, and much more slowly.

During the worst of the great depression, the US$ had 20% deflation a year. AFAICT, that's pretty much a record.

Also, inflation is nothing more than supply and demand as applied to a currency. If we started trading in loaves of bread, and some baker messes up and accidentaly bakes a trillion loaves, you just "inflated" bread.

Wrong. That baker increased the bread supply, but if he, for example, chooses to put all that in his basement, then it will not affect how many loafs an air ticket costs. Thus, in this case it does not affect inflation. Same thing if he decides to give it to people who then bunker it in their basements.

You can of course decide to call "inflation" the increase of money supply. But then that would be your personal fringe definition, and not what most people understand under inflation (the increase of prices).

How many people lost money with Bernie Madoff, while he didn't murder them, he lost billions of their money and they believed they were OK, because of various government regulations.

You have that backwards. Bernie wasn't investigated because the regulators are weak. Such things do not happen in well-governed countries were regulators have not been castrated by Randroids.

I am against all government business regulations, they are all unconstitutional, thus illegal.

Yeah, right. But then you are deranged and crazy, who cares about what you are against or believe in?

- no it's not true. Regulations have nothing to do with how well designed coffee makers are, people who build them don't want to kill their customers anymore than anybody else that produces other things.

Maybe, but they might delude themselves into thinking they don't. Companies are run by humans, remember? That's why there is regulation and official approval procedures. And while crappy coffee machines can be had, they are unlikely to be unsafe thanks to regulation.

Reputation is what counts, brand name recognition is important to a company and having brand name tied to a series of fires that kill customers is lethal to a business.

That may be so too, but regulations are there so that killing people is not how they get their bad reputation.

That is: you are free to get as bad a reputation as you want, but not free to do so by injuring or killing people. I think that is quite sensible.