Slashdot Mirror

>WMD actually have been found in Iraq as well as the intent to manufacture them.

After a huge effort with teams of experts and complete freedom to inspect sites and empty out filing cabinets, this is what we found:
The Duelfer Report

>Iraq harbored terrorists and in fact supported the 9/11 attacks.

President Bush says differently. On September 18 2003 he told reports in DC "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks" . Do you disbelieve the President?

If you disbelieve the President, that has interesting implications. Remember that President Bush has informed us that "God speaks through me". If you don't believe in what the President says, you don't believe in God.

The senior President Bush had this to say about people who don't believe in God: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God. ".

If you're not a citizen, you don't have the rights of a citizen. There's a court ruling that you don't even have habeas corpus.

Being Anonymous Coward won't help you. The government can subpoena Slashdot or show them a National Security Letter demanding their logs. USAPATRIOT second 215 says they don't even need a court order.

Perhaps we will be able to power the post fossil fuel future strictly by attaching dynamos to the founding fathers rolling over in their grave because of people like you. You are the apothesis of un-American, people like you have utterly destroyed the revolution that gave birth to this country.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benjami nfr110256.html

Benjamin Franklin

Perhaps the first long haired hippy, see picture:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www. library.upenn.edu/exhibits/pennhistory/ben/ben26.j pg&imgrefurl=http://www.library.upenn.edu/exhibits /pennhistory/ben/ben.html&h=884&w=746&sz=603&tbnid =J9GH9DS2CWae9M:&tbnh=145&tbnw=122&hl=en&start=2&p rev=/images%3Fq%3Dbenjamin%2Bfranklin%26svnum%3D10 %26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG

Look at that goddamn hippy Franklin, hair down to his shoulders, I'm sure if he showed up in your neighborhood the neighbors would complain. And we all know what the neighbors think is FAR more important than the actual worthiness of a persons ideas, right? We couldn't just go around judging people by the content of their character and not their appearance like Dr. King said for there goes the neighborhood, what will happen to the property values?

Pissed? You bet, people like you utterly disgust me...

I don't remember, maybe it was Einstein who said the definition of insanity was to repeatedly do something and expect a different result. Is the RIAA insane?

It was Ben Franklin. Ironically, I received a Napster advertisement when I went to the above site.

You know these people aren't environmentalists when they get Don Young on their side. Let's look at some Don Young quotes:

"Environmentalists are a socialist group of individuals that are the tool of the Democrat Party. I'm proud to say that they are my enemy. They are not Americans, never have been Americans, never will be Americans."

"I don't see any justification for the federal government owning land, other than the Statue of Liberty and maybe a few parks, maybe a few refuges. But to just own land to do nothing with it I think is a disservice to the Constitution."

"We wonder why we have got the Freemen or the militants. We wonder why we have got unrest in this country. It is because our government, in fact, has got out of hand and out of line, with the Endangered Species Act."

If I have my way, I'm going to dissolve the Forest Service. They're in the business of harvesting trees and they're not harvesting trees, so why have them anymore?

If you can't eat it, can't sleep under it, can't wear it or make something from it, it's not worth anything.

The environmentalists - the self-centered bunch, the waffle-stomping, Harvard-graduating, intellectual idiots that don't understand that they're leading this country into environmental disaster.

Yeah, Don, it's the environmentalists that are leading us into environmental disaster. Riiiiiight....

There is a difference.

Apple first does new stuff and then after it stabilizes tries to figure out how to add backwardcompatibility. (e.g. Mac OS X got support for Mac OS 9/earlier application not from the start)

M$ always throws backward compatibility from the start. Recall Win9x. Recall WinNT - and why it was considered such a failrure - it wasn't backward compatible enough. Win2k/XP again added another layer of backward compatibility to OS. And alas - they are successful.

There is a difference. M$ - marketing first. Apple? - http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/stevejo bs173475.html :

The people who are doing the work are the moving force behind the Macintosh. My job is to create a space for them, to clear out the rest of the organization and keep it at bay.
        -- Steve Jobs

And then read official news for what Billg/management has to say (e.g. http://news.com.com/Is+Vistas+delay+good+for+the+i ndustry/2008-1016_3-6052768.html?tag=nl) and M$FT blogs for the position of the employees - http://minimsft.blogspot.com/2006/03/vista-2007-fi re-leadership-now.html

M$ is primarily marketing body. While Apple's Jobs understands that it's engineers who are making products (without Jobs, Apple is no better than M$FT - just smaller). Good engineering == good products. There are many really great engineers at M$FT - but it's just they have no voice on what goes into products...

"... you KNOW that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people that you do." -- Annie Lamott

"You can tell you have created God in your own image when it turns out that he or she hates all the same people you do." -- Anne Lamott

"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." -- Anne Lamott

...better attitudes toward the US abroad, would dramatically increase our national security

Niccolò Machiavelli -- It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

Peace at any price was the mantra of pre-war (WWII) europe, and it didn't exactly work out the way they wanted it. Keeping our nose out of other people's business was the pre-war (WWII) policy of the US government, and it didn't work so well, either. Thankfully, we have a president who learned the lessons of 50 years ago, who is willing to stop problems before they escalate to the point where they cause 62 millinon deaths before it's over.

Hold on a sec. I am not butchering anything. I obtained and confirmed the quote from several independent sources. You only provide one. While yours does look like it has been researched (or copied) by that wiki author in a little more detail, that doesn't guarantee it is more accurate. For the sake of argument that yours is correct since it really isn't important at all to the point.

What is perhaps more important than the actual wording of the quote is the point: that trading rights and freedoms for security is generally not a good idea. I don't think anybody would have interpretted it as mean any right or freedom starting from 100% no restrictions. That's just silly.

But you are completely bypassing the point I was making for the sake of trying too be geekier about the correct quote. Millions died protecting the rights to not have government monitoring them over reading books on Winnie the Pooh, or Islam, or whatever (as an example). That 3000 more have died and everyone turns 180 degrees on these issues, without even requiring the government to demonstrate the necessity or usefulness, is a travesty and says a lot about the self-centeredness of today's society in America and the ability of propaganda to scare the crap out of them and just start handing over their rights.

I'd rather live with a 1/100,000 chance (3000 out of 300 million) of being killed by a terrorist on American soil than have 300 million people lose rights like this. And that terrorist risk also doesn't take into account the bungling of the intelligence under the existing system in 2001 nor in the increase in security that could be done without reducing rights and freedoms. It hasn't been demonstrated that these measures are even necessary. In some cases, the response security measures (and potentially violations of rights) are even counter-productive towards securing against terrorism.

Yeah, like those black people eating in white restaurants. Damned dirty criminals.

The government is responsible for protecting its citizens and making sure laws are being followed.

Actually, if you'll read your constitution, you'll find that nowhere in it is there any mention of the government protecting you in any way, shape, or form. You're on your own if you're an American buddy.

For once, someone has the balls to protect this country and the "civil rights" propronents want to bring it down.

Go ahead, say it. I know what you're thinking: Niggers and towel heads. Right?

I love freedom, but I am willing to give some up if it means my wife and daughter are safer as a result.

The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Ben Franklin

Where are the troll mods?

> You know that old expression: "Even a broken clock is right twice a day"? Just a reminder that there
> are 23 other hours in a day.

I just noticed this. I meant to type 22, not 23. I guess there goes my clever post.

I guess it's just another example of how "time makes fools of us all"!

Regarding IP, he probably would have said:

"Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing."

[http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/salva dor_dali.html%5D

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

A valient effort, but alas, incorrect! Behold, the real best quote of B-Frank: Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

> They're using a language that actually makes sense,
> rather than one that's just a bunch of ideas cobbled together on top of C

"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh."

Perhaps we should extend this to language wars: "One man's sensibly designed language is another man's mutant freak."

You may really dig Obj-C, but personally, I look at it and get the heebie-jeebies. It has its moments, but I hate the syntax, and for me, I'll take C++'s rigid type system over it any day.

"They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin

Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. -- Ben Franklin

Oh, okay. And what makes you think I got it from the web? I really can't believe I'm continuing to dignify this. Your principle really does mean that if ANYONE ELSE has ever quoted the same passage, you have to also quote them. You and I both know that's wrong, so you can spare me the lecture. I bolded the passage, not because someone else happened to do it a few years ago in an obscure little internet article, but because that is the part I wanted to emphasize! And guess what? I sorta kinda mentioned that I added the bold.

You know what my favorite intro to a book is? It's the one in A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens. It goes "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." (p. 1, bold added) as quoted in

http://www.fidnet.com/~dap1955/dickens/cities.html

http://www.bartleby.com/59/6/itwasthebest.html

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/29595.html

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c/charles dic101118.html

http://www.epinions.com/content_3173621892

http://www.courierpostonline.com/columnists/cxan06 1104a.htm

http://www.answers.com/topic/it-was-the-best-of-ti mes-it-was-the-worst-of-times

http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=75 62_0_10_0_C

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/it_was_the_best _of_times-it_was_the_worst_of/147366.html

According to you and only you, I have to quote all those webpages whenever I want to quote the first like of that book. Otherwise, it's plagiarism. Oh, and I better cross my fingers and hope no one has bolded any part of that sentence.

Well, good work. You got me to dignify another person who really doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

Clarity? A law that has clarity? No such thing, especially where lawyers and politicians are concerned. The second amendment has been misread for generations by the legislative and judicial branches of the government is just one example of what the writers thought would be the clearest declaration they could that government could not limit, prevent, or take away the arms of its citizens. Jefferson: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Now as far as the article is concerned, perhaps this quote from Jefferson indicates his views on attempting to legislate morality: "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion."
The quotes above can be found here as well as other thought provoking quotes still relevent to our society and government. One could write a thesis on just how our government has diverged itself from what he and the other founding fathers intended and how Jefferson predicted it just from the quotes on that page alone. I wish all the bleeding hearts, security blanket hopefuls, etc would all read and discus Jefferson, Franklin, Paine and other founding fathers' writings so maybe they would get a clue. Frankly at the moment we are getting a "false" response to Jefferson's if/then statement "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Give credit where due - this is an H L Mencken quote.

For those of you who are wondering what the cat thing is about, the following quote may shed some light on the subject:

The wireless telegraph is not difficult to understand. The ordinary telegraph is like a very long cat. You pull the tail in New York, and it meows in Los Angeles. The wireless is the same, only without the cat.

                                                                    - Albert Einstein

Source http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberte ins148879.html

It was Wolfgang Pauli: "This isn't right, this isn't even wrong."

Reference: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/wolfga ng_pauli.html

Does that tell us something about your intelligence in the internet age?

Seriously (didn't want to be mean, but couldn't help myself), were you maybe thinking of Alfred Whitehead, who said:

Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking of them.

The evil is the EXACT SAME! The only differeence is that one company is smaller than the other, does that make it less evil?

According to Lord Acton, if "Power Corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely"... then the answer to your question is:

Yes. Size does matter... the more power a company wields, the less likely the rest of us will be able to stop them when they choose to do something bad (which they will be forced to do, to continue "growing" to satisfy their investors). The best situation is lots of similar sized, innovative companies that jockey for your dollars, creating new markets, and making everyone's lives better.

The myth that large companies are "kinder" is a trick of the mind: Their *massive* marketing dollars at work.

>PMI is about ensure that a reliable process is in place, and that there are measurable goals and delivery points so that you can check your progress in terms of time and quality.

Ugh. Software engineering does not really lend itself to "measurable goals" and "delivery points", and the sooner project managers disabuse themselves of the notion the better. Engineering is a trial and error process. It makes no more sense to ask for a timetable than it does to ask for a timetable for solving logic puzzles. Insisting that the technical people (the people who do the actual work, i.e. not the folks with the PMI certs) are wrong about it just compounds the error.

>And before you even think of bitching that "making software is not like a factory" - read a management textbook. Design (the creative, unique, once-off part y'know, like software development) is a production function.

They have plenty of project failures and cost overruns to show for it too. What's your point?

Look up the phrase "definition of insanity" sometime.

In the US you may also get the losing party to be liable for the court costs and lawyer's fees. But before that you need to get your lawyer to agree to do the work for what you pay up front.

N.B.: This also increases your liability if you lose. You will probably be liable for THEIR lawyers fees and for court costs. And they could afford fancier lawyers up front than you could, so losing is quite likely regardless of the merits of the case.

The big thing seems to be that in the EU lawyer costs are typically much lower, and the trials much quicker.

"Justice delayed is justice denied"

You're completely right, rational = dead. Why didn't he write logically about his ideas? Because people don't learn that way. = Socrates + Shakespear.

"Everyone else doesn't know anything, but pretend they do. But I know I know nothing"

Oh, mr Unabomber. The rotten/library page says he needed to get laid. Except that I don't know anything about him, Charles Manson though said a lot of wise things,

"No sense makes sense"

For one, goes well with Einstein's

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"

(He never figured out eternity though, so not one of my favorite philosphers)

I really need to save my links better, there was a topic about Google stealing all minds of the world, and one guy said grades don't count for anything, since you only get good ones because you can remember things = intellectual, which isn't related to coming up with things = genious.

Pirate?

(Reference)

-Peter

Another thing to consider, which this article didn't specifically point out is... Aluminum cases keep your system cooler than standard steel cases.

I'm guessing the article didn't point it out because it's not true. It's an old urban legend among PC builders that's been thoroughly debunked repeatedly, to the point where most people actually don't believe it anymore. (This is a good thing - most urban myths just keep on going forever... witness the Bill Gates 640k quote myth.)

Aluminum is a superior thermal conductor to steel but that's meaningless when you're talking about open air. Your PC's components are not actually in contact with the aluminum so it doesn't do them any good to be in an aluminum case. The vast majority of a PC's heat (around 99.9%) is removed by the PC's fans, not by conduction through the case, and you can easily verify this yourself just by feeling the top of your PC when it's on. It's likely that it's barely even warm to the touch - if it is, then you've got bigger problems that aren't going to be solved just by an aluminum case.

It's far more important that a PC case be built for good airflow than what material it's made out of. A well-designed steel case will outperform a poorly-designed aluminum case in terms of heat removal any day of the week.

It's another myth that aluminum cases are lighter - that may be true by a half pound or so, but when you're talking about 40 lbs. vs. 39.5 lbs. in a fully loaded PC, I don't think that much matters either. Your PC's innards don't magically get lighter just because you bought an aluminum case.

Buy an aluminum case because you like the way it looks and you like the way it's designed, not for any other reason.

(btw, I have two PC's in aluminum cases - I just like the look.)

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasj eff169586.html

to this admin.

And this could almost certainly have been uttered in the white house for the last 5 years. What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.

Steven Wright has the right idea...

How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.

i sometimes think back to what osama bin laden said a couple of years before the 9/11 attacks.
he stated that al-quaida did not have the resources to tear america apart, but that it still would happen.
guess how?
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/o/osamabi nla189671.html
another insightful quote:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/o/osamabi nla189673.html

note: i cannot comfirm the authenticy of these quotes, but i have read them before on other sites, so it seems likely

i sometimes think back to what osama bin laden said a couple of years before the 9/11 attacks.
he stated that al-quaida did not have the resources to tear america apart, but that it still would happen.
guess how?
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/o/osamabi nla189671.html
another insightful quote:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/o/osamabi nla189673.html

note: i cannot comfirm the authenticy of these quotes, but i have read them before on other sites, so it seems likely

There won't be anything we won't say to people to try and convince them that our way is the way to go.
--
In the decade ahead I can predict that we will provide over twice the productivity improvement that we provided in the '90s."
--
Let's face it, the average computer user has the brain of a Spider Monkey.
--
If you can't make it good, at least make it look good.
--
Microsoft programs are generally bug-free. If you visit the Microsoft hotline, you'll literally have to wait weeks if not months until someone calls in with a bug in one of our programs. 99.99% of calls turn out to be user mistakes. I know not a single less irrelevant reason for an update than bugfixes.
The reasons for updates are to present more new features.

(sources)
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/bill_g ates.html
http://www.antioffline.com/HUM/bill.gates.quotes.h tml

Folks- speed doesn't kill, and this is something few people (especially the "won't someone please think of the children" types) fail to understand.

But, you've got to admit, it's bloody hard to get killed by a stationary car.

(Carbon monoxide poisoning etc. aside)

It's like the old Eddie Izzard line,
And the National Rifle Association says that, "Guns don't kill people, people do," but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that.

1. It wasn't George Washington.
2. The quotation is incorrect.
3. It's basically come up every time the patriot act has.

Oceans are big - really big - you just won't believe how vastly, hugely mind-bogglingly big they are. You may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to oceans.

(ref.)

STFU. Will's a wise man. You just don't like him because he believes the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is an 'embarassment':

Whatever right the Second Amendment protects is not as important as it was 200 years ago... The government should deconstitutionalize the subject by repealing the embarrasing Amendment. -- George 'F' Will

Again, I am merely stating that just because we haven't found an exception--or that it seems very unlikely that one exists--still doesn't forgive the idea that we know that it doesn't. Proving a negative of this scope, of course, being quite difficult.

I'd argue that it is very likely that an exception does exist, but also that we know that it won't happen in the world of "everyday" quantum mechanics. We know that more work is needed to give us a quantum theory of gravity, for instance, but we also know that it won't really show up in typical non-relativistic QM.

Physics is not "complete"--there are some very large holes at high energies, etc., but the boundaries of those holes are fairly well-characterized. To paraphrase Rumsfeld, the holes are known unknowns.

I suppose this leaves open the possibilty of breaking quantum key distribution by going to Planck energies, but this is like trying to open a safe with a nuclear weapon, only harder (we have nuclear weapons, but have no idea how we could get even remotely close to the Planck energy). Everyone will know that you did it, it couldn't be done in secret, and would probably destroy the information you're trying to get.

No, I think the name was carefully considered and picked because it fit so well

Consider these quotes from the original de Tocqueville:

As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?

In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own.

Consider these quotes from the original de Tocqueville:

As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?

In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own.

As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?

Here's a quote from the original de Tocqueville:

As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?

Wrong man.

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

-- Napoleon Bonaparte 1769-1821

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/napoleo nbo130787.html

From my experience, I hate to read books...They are boring to me. I both need and want something exciting that will entertain my mind. In fact the people arguing that computers are lowering scores and such need to review the other pieces. What is really important, a test score? I don't believe so. In the world where jobs are held people don't take tests as methods of productivity...People work on projects and other similar pieces. So why is it important to get good grades on a damn test? It is important to understand the concepts which are gained through experience. But if I can't perform on a test, which is a set time frame, with a group of questions, then should I be burdened?

No. The problem today is with the education system. If we are going to compare education and business then it would most likely make sense to use a productivity approach. Teach students to work in groups and solo on projects. Make the projects challenging and exciting. If people aren't learning due to the current teaching methods, change the methods. You can't expect a whole era of people to change the way they are learning simply because you find them to be getting lower test scores. Figure out a different method to teach them. Instead of saying "Ok we will have a test on line equations." Say "We are going to be doing projects with equations of lines and then to show that you have understood that we will have a quiz/test" The projects are a reinforcement of the material rather than just going with a straight lecture.

Someone mentioned something about Asian school systems. Those systems are good in their structure ONLY because the system is so strict that it can be rigid like that and succeed. So if we want to, again, change the way our era of people are learning and doing things in an entire cultural revolution, then sure...it makes sense...otherwise, go back and rethink your process.

To go back to the argument about computers. While distracting, I think that because of computers and my involvement I have learned SO much more than I would have otherwise. Books bore me as I stated earlier. Art is not fun for me because I suck at it. However, I can take the different concepts from math and apply them to 3D worlds in a computer simulation that I've developed and know that I understand those concepts. Why? Because I can apply them. I know that I can take the Collision System and revert it back to basic Multivariable Calc and Linear Algebra...Try telling a person who works it all out on paper to apply it to that system from scratch. Probably wont happen, I've seen this happen. It is certainly important to be able to look at differnt things such as a math equation or a poem and be able to derive or extract values or meanings from those, but it is also VERY important to see the application of it. Projects get you application. Computers have been a VERY useful aid in my educational experience and, I would argue, many other people have found the same results.

I believe it was Mark Twain who once said, "Don't let schooling interfere with your education." http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mark_t wain.html/ This is the approach I've taken and will continue to take!

Perhaps it's more subtle in the original French, but Jeanneney seems to be more whining about the limited funding that the government has provided for the National Library's efforts so far, and waving the twin red-white-and-blue flags of French national pride and the insidious spread of American culture to draw attention to the problem.

He's not saying it's a bad thing in itself... but he's saying if the American culture is not to overwhelm the rest of the global culture, Europe needs to get with the program... or be forgotten.

In other words, "Publish or Perish."

Gates is providing a valid reason for patenting as much as possible since innovation is grinding to a halt because of patenting. So, he is saying the patent system is bad, but that MS needs to patent as a result.

Stallman is pointing out that innovation is grinding to halt because of patents. So he is saying the patent system is bad, and hence patents are bad.

So they both actually agree that patents are bad, and they are both acting according to their principles in this bad system.

This is a the tragedy of the commons situation, where the intellectual "property" commons is being fenced off by people now standing on the shoulders of giants of the past. The people fencing off the property are preventing others from wandering into what used to be an open knowledge commons, a commons which in the past used to be shared. Because the resources of this commons are inexhaustible, there is no fundamental reason to restrict it. There is no fundamental reason to have a system of patents that make human knowledge subject to a land run.

That is why intellectual "property" is intellectual theft when you actually start examining the premises.

Gate's intellectual landgrab is quite legal, and hence not regarded as theft. Indeed, he is doing absolutely and clearly the right and sensible thing in the current system.

The way to fix the problem would actually be to do away with the patent system.

Yeah, but Larry Wall says that hubris is one of the three chief virtues of a programmer, so it's okay.

From parent sig:
"It's amazing what you can accomplish when you don't care who gets the credit." - Ronald Reagan

Yes, it's amazing what a reputation for wisdom Reagan was able to accomplish by not caring whom he stole the credit from.

One word: Patriotism.