In the perhaps foolish hope that some of you are not content in your ignorance, I recommend reading the Federalist Paper 51: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm.

Content creators and providers want to get paid. If their fees seem too high or their contract terms too onerous don't view the content. I'm sick of people whining about it. As wonderful the concept is you don't have a free right to the creative effort of others.

My experience is that programs and computer languages can not be enhanced indefinitely. In fact they reach a peak and further changes only make them more complex and less reliable. Some believe C++ passed its peak long ago and emacs may be in that situation as well.

I seldom see this sentiment expressed but you are absolutely correct. Coding, text editing and compilation are the least important part of software development and may ultimately be automated away. In my view those who brag about their mastery of obscure keystroke combinations are missing the boat. Similarly those who brag about efficiency (speed or size) instead of correctness are scary for a slow program may still be useful but an incorrect one may be dangerous.

Yet another dig bites man story. Government requirements often mandate testing and certification by third parties, For example, FCC emissions testings.

Some fear motivated projects are quite worthwhile. The interstate highway system for example was created to facilitate military transport between the coasts (just like the Panama canal) and more obviously the internet was created by DARPA to develop a communications network that had a chance of surviving a Russian nuclear attack.

Who gets the money's derived from patents and new ideas is of little importance except to the parties concerned. Clearly an enormous amount of money and other resources are wasted in legal fees that might otherwise be spent on research, development and invention. On the other hand this is a rich country and the real issue is whether or not the constitutional goals of the patent system have been compromised: ... to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. This argument is similar to the discussion of medical malpractice lawsuits . The goal is clearly to design a system that encourages good medical care for as many people as possible as well as caring for those harmed by human and system errors. Sadly many, perhaps most people are financially motivated so the problem becomes how can we use financial carrots and sticks to align with good policy.

I would be interested in seeing what percentage of WSJ and Economist subscriptions are corporate vs individual. I suspect the number is quite high and is just another example of the much loved cost shifting technique where others pay while management reaps.