Slashdot Mirror

The interesting thing about hacking is that you can have a few smart and determined people in a building with a 56K modem and some old computers and they can still do it. You don't need much infrastructure.

The US's enemies - Iran, China, Russia and North Korea, etc don't really have a shortage of smart people. North Korea has almost no infrastructure, but that doesn't matter for asymmetric things like hacking. In fact if you lived in North Korea, hacking enemies of the state is basically the nearest you can get to entrepreneurship - you'd get a decent apartment, extra rations and protection from the bureaucracy.

E.g. if you read about how well people like Sakharov lived before they were dissidents

https://www.hoover.org/researc...

His embrace of human rights did not come through a sudden conversion. Scrupulously honest, and almost naÃve in his understanding of politics and power, he came to it in stages. Let me give you a brief chronology of the metamorphosis.

First came his concern about the radioactive fallout from atmospheric testing. But in those years, in the 1950s, the concerns were still new, and raising them was possible within the scientific and political elite. These were issues Sakharov could take up directly with Nikita Khrushchev, even though he was at times rebuffed and put in his place for meddling in politics.

Then came the Academy of Science elections in 1964 at which Sakharov openly spoke out against accepting an ally of the pseudo-scientist Trofim Lysenko. The Academy of Science, in fact, was probably the closest to a democratic institution in the Soviet state, where full members could still vote to reject a candidate pushed by the Kremlin.

So far, Sakharov's activities were still within the bounds of permissible debate for someone of his standing in the elite. Yet as Sakharov noted in his Memoirs, the academy vote, like the struggle against atmospheric testing, marked another step on the way to becoming active in civic affairs.

The turning point for Sakharov, as for the entire dissident movement, came in the mid-1960s. These were years in which Sakharov signed a petition against the rehabilitation of Stalin, followed by a letter against the enactment of the law against defaming the Soviet state, which became the basis for the prosecution of many dissidents, followed by a decision to join in a demonstration on Pushkin Square on Constitution Day.

Then came his first letter, this one to Leonid Brezhnev, in support of a dissident, and then his involvement in the movement to save Lake Baikal.

What is amazing to realize now is that in those years, Sakharov had such high rank that he could pick up a special phone and directly call the KGB chief, Yuri Andropov, as he did in 1967 to seek the release of the writers Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuli Daniel.

These phones, known as vertushka, connected members of the top nomenklatura [chief officials]-I managed to steal one from the Kremlin during the chaos of 1991, and I learned then that the name, vertushka, which means "dial," comes from the fact that the elite network was the first to use dial phones.

If you're in a hellish totalitarian state helping the powers that be gives you a lot of privilege - not just a nice apartment and elite rations but you're get a vertushka phone you can call the head of the secret police on for a chat.

And, like I say, places like Russia don't a shortage of smart people. Like this chap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Also most Western consumer stuff - iOS, Android, Windows, macOS - is full of vulnerabilities.

Religious people donate both more to religious charities and to secular charities.

https://www.hoover.org/researc...

Interesting. Thanks. I've seen several studies that say the opposite, so clearly I need to dig deeper into the question to identify the differences in methodology. Unfortunately, the article you link is very light on methodological detail and it's not clear if the author has even published that information.

One guess, though, is that I think the other studies measured non-religious giving in dollars, while the author appears to have measured the probability of giving something. So, religious people who donate thousands to their church and a few dollars to the local homeless shelter vs non-religious people who donate hundreds to the homeless shelter and nothing to the church would fit.

Religious people donate both more to religious charities and to secular charities.

https://www.hoover.org/researc...

Changing to a new search engine or social network requires merely typing a different address at the top of your browser window. The two situations are simply not comparable.

Yeah, if I get banned from Youtube or FB I can go to Minds or Gab.ai. Where no one will see my post.

It's like saying if you get banned from Moscow you can go and live in Siberia where you're not allowed to have a phone. Which the Soviet Union did to Sakharov when he said things they didn't like.

What it meant is they could control what the Overton Windows was in Moscow, where they cared about politics but exiling people to Siberia where they didn't. Meanwhile pro government media in Moscow would run all sorts of stories to discredit exiled people. E.g.

https://www.hoover.org/researc...

Without any advance warning, Sakharov is paid a surprise visit in Gorky by Nikolai Yakovlev, one of the sleazy, corrupted writers used by the KGB to slander its targets. Yakovlev had written an especially foul book attacking Sakharov and making vile anti-Semitic insinuations about his wife, Elena Bonner, yet here he comes and offers to interview Sakharov.

Here's how Sakharov describes what happens next: "I'd realized right away that I was going to end up hitting him."

And sure enough, Sakharov abruptly interrupts the conversation and says, "I'd rather take care of this matter by slapÂping you.

"I dodged around the table. He flinched and avoided the blow, but I surprised him with an unexpected left-handed slap on his flabby cheek. 'Now get out of here,' I yelled, pushing the door open."

Rather like people in the pro left media refer to gab as 'a social network for neo Nazis'. I.e. they want to control the dominant network, force anyone who disagrees with their narrative off that network off it and then refer to where they go as 'alt right' or neo Nazi networks.

And of course even if you run your own website the ISP might decide to pull it and stop you registering another domain name as happened to Daily Stormer. Daily Stormer really are Neo Nazis of course but Brendan O'Neill makes the case for free speech for Neo Nazis pretty well here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And of course Kipness and people like her regularly call people like Milo or Ben Shapiro Neo Nazis, white supremacists, transphobic and so on and condone AntiFa thuggery to disrupt their talks. Hell Kipness says one of the reasons for banning them from universities is that 'AntiFa will stay home' and that banning them is like banning Goebbels. I'm sure once she's got rid of the Nazis and then trolls like Milo she'd come after Shapiro and eventually even libertarians like O'Neill who criticise her authoritarian nonsense too.

And I'm sure if they got the same treatment that the Daily Stormer got, the left would say 'well their ISP is a private company, screw 'em'.

Of course if a private company discriminates against someone the left approves of, they demand legal action (gay wedding cakes) or regulation (net neutrality)

To paraphrase Niemoller 'Once the came for the Nazis and it did nothing because I was not a Nazi. Then they came for the trolls and I did nothing because I was not a troll. Then they came for the conservatives and I didn't nothing because I was not a conservative. Then they came for me, and there was no one to speak for me'.

Fuck the US left basically, they're a bunch of authoritarians and more dangerous than the Neo Nazi kooks like Anglin who are basically trolls at this point with no real chance to implement their ideas. The left by contrast is completely dominant culturally in the old and new media and already has its own Brownshirts in the form of AntiFa. Even losing an election hasn't really affected their grasp on culture.

https://www.hoover.org/researc...

Hal_Porter, thanks for an inspiring article. Beyond its value as a history reminder, it's interesting as a lesson in psychology, because reading about other people's motivation is always fun.

That said, I take some issues with that article. First is the ease with which Schmemann connects the dots between the Soviet Union and Putin's Russia:

The sad truth is that the collapse of the Soviet state, which seemed to vindicate everything the dissidents fought for, did not lead to the democratic state they presumed would follow. ... Sakharov would be ninety-three now, and I presume he would be enormously active, writing letters and statements...

... He did not, alas, leave behind a Russia democratic and free. That may take generations.

There is a lapse in that logic and it is failing to account for Russia's 1990s. If you wish to get a better insight into contemporary Russia (than Schemann and his likes might offer), I advise you to read Paul Klebnikov's "Godfather of the Kremlin". It's a mainstream book, perhaps somewhat out of fashion now, but still legit.

My second criticism, somewhat related to the first point, is conflating economy with human rights:

Sakharov, though he declined to join the party, was an uncritical believer in the merits of socialism over capitalism until his eyes opened to the violations of human rights.

It's an understandable mistake for a Soviet dissident, but a Western journalist — or us today for that matter — shouldn't uncritically repeat it.

https://www.hoover.org/researc...

Sakharov was a willing member of that system, convinced like so many scientists of the era that they were soldiers on the front lines of a global struggle which required sacrifice and suffering. He never repudiated or regretted creating a weapon of unimagÂinable power, believing that only a balance of power would prevent its use.

His embrace of human rights did not come through a sudden conversion. Scrupulously honest, and almost naive in his understanding of politics and power, he came to it in stages. Let me give you a brief chronology of the metamorphosis.

First came his concern about the radioactive fallout from atmospheric testing. But in those years, in the 1950s, the concerns were still new, and raising them was possible within the scientific and political elite. These were issues Sakharov could take up directly with Nikita Khrushchev, even though he was at times rebuffed and put in his place for meddling in politics.

Then came the Academy of Science elections in 1964 at which Sakharov openly spoke out against accepting an ally of the pseudo-scientist Trofim Lysenko. The Academy of Science, in fact, was probably the closest to a democratic institution in the Soviet state, where full members could still vote to reject a candidate pushed by the Kremlin.

So far, Sakharov's activities were still within the bounds of permissible debate for someone of his standing in the elite. Yet as Sakharov noted in his Memoirs, the academy vote, like the struggle against atmospheric testing, marked another step on the way to becoming active in civic affairs.

The turning point for Sakharov, as for the entire dissident movement, came in the mid-1960s. These were years in which Sakharov signed a petition against the rehabilitation of Stalin, followed by a letter against the enactment of the law against defaming the Soviet state, which became the basis for the prosecution of many dissidents, followed by a decision to join in a demonstration on Pushkin Square on Constitution Day.

Then came his first letter, this one to Leonid Brezhnev, in support of a dissident, and then his involvement in the movement to save Lake Baikal.

What is amazing to realize now is that in those years, Sakharov had such high rank that he could pick up a special phone and directly call the KGB chief, Yuri Andropov, as he did in 1967 to seek the release of the writers Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuli Daniel.

These phones, known as vertushka, connected members of the top nomenklatura [chief officials]--I managed to steal one from the Kremlin during the chaos of 1991, and I learned then that the name, vertushka, which means "dial," comes from the fact that the elite network was the first to use dial phones.

On that call, Sakharov was told that Sinyavsky and Daniel would be released in a general amnesty, but they never were.

Step by step, Sakharov developed what he described as a growing compulsion to speak out on the fundamental issues of the age.

Finally, in 1968--that remarkable year of social rebellion the world 'round--Sakharov took the decisive step of putting his thoughts on paper in the milestone essay, "Reflections on Progress, Peaceful Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom."

The work coincided with a turning point in the development of the dissident movement, the Prague Spring of 1968, the rise and spectacular fall of "socialism with a human face."

"Reflections" defined the direction Sakharov's activism would take from that point on. For the epigraph, Sakharov chose a line from Goethe: "He alone is worthy of life and freedom / Who each day does battle for them anew."

It was not a call to arms; Sakharov did not declare that struggle and heroic exploits are ends in themselves. They are worthwhile, he wrote, "only insofar as they enable other people to lead normal, peaceful lives."

"The meaning of life is life itself," he continued, "t

If you're a diversity candidate, you get the benefit of the doubt - even if you experience the inconvenience of the courts.

If you're a conservative or undesirable, you're considered Fair Game for anything.

Sigh. You do realize the Hoover Institution is at Stanford, right?

"The people cannot be legislated into morality."

See: The Sordid Origin of Hate Speech Laws

So busy declaring their unwavering support for the idea of Global Warming — and its contribution to drought , none of these guys would raise an alarm over the possibility of a flood.

Both have happened before — early settlers in California have died due to drought-induced famine, and 1863 has seen a spectacular flooding, for example.

The science is settled my tail.

Why there is a culture war explains the whole SJW movement: http://www.hoover.org/research...

I think the best defense Zuck could have given is that we need to include the traditional patriarchy and its hegemonic value system in our corporate dialog.

disclaimer: chomsky adorns my mantle.

I assume that would be Cambodian genocide denier, anti-Semite, anti-American Noam Chomsky?

(This is rich, as is Chomsky: Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist. Interesting use of copyright too. )

I hope you cast a wider net for views than just fringe Left figures like Chomsky.

What's makes you think the FDA is a net benefit by regulating medical claims? How many people have to die for lack of FDA approval before you're willing to allow them to make their own decisions about their health? Why don't you want to allow customized medicine for things like cancer by making them prohibitively expensive via the FDA?

You don't have to be a libertarian to be willing to consider the results of empirical studies about what FDA delays cost. Can you at least be a utilitarian and go with the libertarian solution when it's the most effective based on the available evidence?

The FDA delay in approving beta blockers, by the FDA's own numbers, cost about 100,000 lives. Three years of delay on interleukin-2 after it was available in Europe? 3,000 lives. Every year of the approval process, every millions of dollars spent on approval fees to the FDA, equals lives lost and people who could have benefited who don't. Even Thalidomide, the one big claim people always have for the FDA, wasn't blocked by the FDA because of it's impact on embryos. They weren't even investigating that, it took news reports. Total Thalidomide affected children in the U.S.? 17. The rest of the world, 5-10K. Does that help the 10x as many people who died from lack of beta blocker approvals? Does anyone notice that currently Thalidomide is approved by the FDA to treat leprosy and cancer?

Yes, health choices can be risky, but rather than add information and give advice on them, you seem to want to tell adults what they can and can't decide to do, despite them knowing their own situation better than you do and despite their ability to consult with a knowledgeable specialist in the area of their medical issue before making an informed decision. There's no empirical evidence the FDA saves lives, the evidence points to them costing lives overall. But that doesn't seem to be the point of their existence. The point seems to be control and having the power to tell people what they must do. Which is where this conversation started.

You want pre-FDA history? Insulin was invented as a treatment and came to the market to treat diabetes in a couple of years when the FDA wasn't around. If the FDA was around, it would have taken at least 3-5 more years and might even have never made it to the market (or much, much later) because of the expense involved!

Your newly redefined cry of 'RACIST!!!!' depends on a mishmash of cultural and moral relativity that I don't subscribe to. Some cultures are better than others, despite the wishes of you and your huffpo buddy. You can tell this by how people vote with their feet. Hell, why don't you tell me a list of countries you'd like to live in, or could possibly tolerate. Then maybe we can discuss what kind of culture dominates in those countries.

While you consider that, I'll give you a few quotes in this area (in retaliation for that huffpo article):

At some point someone just has to tell these kids the truth: some civilizations are better than others. But that has nothing to do with you. You are not inexorably linked to your ancestors. You can appropriate all the good insights anywhere you find them. To deny yourself goodness, truth, and beauty wherever it is, you wind up diminishing your own dignity, treating yourself as if you were no more than your color or your genes.

- Anonymous

And this one from Thomas Sowell:

These and other dramatic and heartening rises of whole peoples came from doing things that were often directly the opposite of what is being urged upon less fortunate groups in the United States today. Far from painting themselves into their own little cultural corner and celebrating their "identity," these peoples sought the knowledge and insights of other peoples more advanced than themselves in particular skills, technologies, or organizational experience. It took centuries for the English to absorb the cultural advances brought by such conquerors as the Romans and the Normans and by such immigrants as the Huguenots, Germans, Jews, and others who played a major role in developing the British economy. Their early dependence on outsiders was painfully demonstrated when the Romans pulled out of Britain in the fifth century, in order to go defend their threatened empire on the continent, and the British economy and political structure both collapsed. Yet ultimately--more than a thousand years later--the British rose to lead the world into the industrial revolution and controlled an empire containing one-fourth of the land area of the earth and one-fourth of the human race.

http://www.hoover.org/research...

There's been quite a few articles very recently about several of the "organizers" in ISIS, and their pushing of the "end times" dogma. They do include a lot of the Sunni who were basically thrown out of the Iraqi military when Bush disbanded it.... apparently they had to have something to do, and lets face it, ISIS is a group that the worst of them could probably easily fit in.... but that in larger part is purely because they had to do something to survive once their former meal ticket disappeared; find something to eat or die is a powerful motivator for pretty much everyone.

Knee jerk reactions are certainly popular among slashdot posters. For the rest of us, being informed about how immigration actually affects economic growth and wages is probably a good idea. Start with a conservative perspective, so you know you aren't getting a pro-immigrant bias:

http://www.hoover.org/research...

There are severe economic consequences of this.

Yes, there are. They are generally positive. But don't believe me. Have a look at what a conservative think tank has to say:
http://www.hoover.org/research...

I think that you and I are coming from different world views. You talk about things being appropriate or inappropriate but those are value judgments that I cannot make for others. I favor freedom of contract for both insurers and insured. The insurers should be free to offer stated policies with enumerated benefits at stated prices and both parties should be free to negotiate, take or leave it as they see fit. The only thing that matters is that two private parties, whether individuals or groups of individuals, came together in a mutually acceptable agreement. The details are neither my business nor my concern. The market would decide what policies are offered at what prices and what the details of those policies would be. Some regulation would still be necessary to ensure that contracts and prices were honored, but by and large it's my opinion that this type of system would serve most people best and that it would be a fair way to price risk.

I understand that you might disagree with this take, but as I've said I believe that the purpose of insurance is to accurately price and thereby mitigate risks, whether they be to health, life or property. Some people would like to see the insurance system used for other purposes, in addition to providing insurance. For example, they may like to see the insurance business molded by government into an alternative form of income redistribution or a parallel system of taxation in addition to providing insurance, but I do not favor such schemes.

If you're really interested in reading a much better explanation of how a market system for health care would work then I suggest the following article:

How to Cure Health Care

Which is partly due to FUD, partly due to bad math, and partly due to media hype. A quick google search turned up the Why Social Security Won't go Bankrupt and Social Security Reform. The former discusses the thoughts behind Social Security, saying that workers today are paying retirees today. The latter having some of the "truth" (if there is such a thing) of what that money is used for, i.e. Congress borrows and may or may not pay back from the SS fund.
  The former article doesn't go into much detail about how it works if the balance of retirees to workers starts tipping steeply toward retirees, but it does comment that some of that fund is from overtaxation of all the people. It's near impossible to know how many pennies each person should be taxed so we can have a zero balance sheet for the millions of people working and millions retired. This article doesn't have any solid evidence of anything, but it is more of a conceptualization of how things work than a hard-facts document. So the idea is perpetuated that Congress is smashing the social security piggy bank to fund some pet projects, or just because a couple members wanted a cookie.
  The second article starts in on the FUD, and doesn't give any hard evidence or supporting references (notice that?) for any of the claims they are making about how the pot of money is going to dry up. So they continue to spew out that Congressman so-and-so was short a couple mil for whatever reason, and got a few other senators to buy off that he really needed the money to put some spinners on his cadillac.

This all started with concern over the baby boomers (all those blue-hairs terrorizing the roads starting in around the turn of the century) vastly outnumbering their children. The concern, of course, being that there wasn't enough money to fund the retirement of those baby-boomers. Looking at the Social Security website, you'll see that the baby-boomers have nothing to worry about. For the most part, they aren't all relying on Social Security, and many have pensions and IRA's to bolster that income.

Still concerned?

Europe and the Anglosphere can be a bit uneven about some things.

The Sordid Origin of Hate-Speech Laws

All western European countries have hate-speech laws. In 2008, the eu adopted a framework decision on “Combating Racism and Xenophobia” that obliged all member states to criminalize certain forms of hate speech. On the other side of the Atlantic, the Supreme Court of the United States has gradually increased and consolidated the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment. The European concept of freedom of expression thus prohibits certain content and viewpoints, whereas, with certain exceptions, the American concept is generally concerned solely with direct incitement likely to result in overt acts of lawlessness.

Yet the origin of hate-speech laws has been largely forgotten. The divergence between the United States and European countries is of comparatively recent origin. In fact, the United States and the vast majority of European (and Western) states were originally opposed to the internationalization of hate-speech laws. European states and the U.S. shared the view that human rights should protect rather than limit freedom of expression.

Rather, the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.

As Americans, Europeans and others contemplate the dividing line emerging on the extent to which free speech should be limited to criminalize the “defamation of religions” and “Islamophobia,” launched by the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (oic) since 1999, they should bear this forgotten history in mind. However well-intended—and its initial proponents were anything but well-intended—the Western acceptance of hate-speech laws severely limits the ability of liberal democracies to counter attempts to broaden the scope of hate-speech laws under international human rights law, with potentially devastating consequences for the preservation of free speech.

We can save the discussion about the US 2nd Amendment rights for another time. There may be more.

sucking money out of the economy, then letting it sit, thereby starving the economy of capital, thereby adding to high unemployment, lower wages, less benefits, less job security, less public services, etc

the issue is that big corporations are making large profits and are doing nothing with it. No reinvestment, no dividends, no capital investment – it just sitting in a bank account

Though I detect a subtle distinction between GP and your post, you are both describing cash hoarding. But where I really differ with you is here:

America has rock bottom interest rates and companies find it easy to hawk bonds to raise money – even junk bonds. So don’t worry about the Fed.

I worry a lot about the Fed. Just because rates are low doesn't mean that monetary policy is loose enough. Let's check inflation:

"Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 1.1 percent before seasonal adjustment."

1.1% inflation does not sound like the result of loose monetary policy. But macroeconomic data has all sorts of issues with it, so for some theory, let's go to the greatest monetary economist ever, Milton Freidman:

Low interest rates are generally a sign that money has been tight, as in Japan; high interest rates, that money has been easy. source

So the rock bottom interest rates that you refer to are indicative that money has been tight, when it should have been loose. Therefore I hold the Fed responsible and Apple (mostly) blameless.

When you think about how unacceptable this would be anywhere else, you have to wonder how this insane system came to be as it is.

Here is the in-depth answer if you're interested. I usually get shot down for posting this link here on Slashdot because it doesn't comport well with the groupthink on health care, but if you honestly want to hear a good economic argument explaining why health care in the United States is so expensive instead of the same old "greedy insurance company" canards, it's probably worth your time.

Seems your placement when it comes to education is a bold faced lie

Students First, which was founded by Michele Rhee (if you don't know who she is then you haven't been paying attention to education) in 2010 to advocate for measured performance based improvements in American public schools, grades California an 'F' for 2013 along with 10 other states placing us in the bottom quintile of US public schools. Exactly how bad it is depends upon whom you ask but by any objective measure California public schools compare poorly with those in most other US states. California taxpayers are definitely not receiving good value for their money when it comes to education. As for the 50% requirement, California Proposition 98 (1988) amended the state constitution to mandate it.

I don't understand how you can call government services a waste of money on essential things

I'm not against spending money on essential things and I believe that education is one of those things. However, that doesn't mean that I will accept failure on the part of the schools to achieve results with that money. The left argues that we should throw more money at the problem indiscriminately, but how will that improve performance? That will only reward failure on the part of teachers and school administrators to do the jobs that we've already paid them to do. I submit that if they cannot meet our standards that we must fire them and get people who can. I don't mind paying for performance, but I refuse to pay for failure. I don't stand for it when companies that I invest in fail to perform to my expectations so why should I accept it when government wastes my tax money?

Things like medical care that would cover more people and cost less is a taboo here because too many rich people would have to wait more than 5 minutes to see their doctor,

If you want healthcare, pay for it out of your own damn pocket or purchase insurance. Healthcare is expensive in the United States primarily because it lacks an effective mechanism to communicate prices to consumers in a competitive market. Try asking your doctor how much something might cost and they cannot even tell you because they have no idea. What other good or service is there where you cannot get the price upfront? We would never put up with this elsewhere in the economy so why do we continue to pay for our health care in this manner? There's a long and complex history to that, and I won't profess to give a whole answer here, but suffice it to say that government policies, and especially tax incentives, have encouraged Americans to purchase their healthcare in the most opaque and inefficient way possible. If your interested, you can read more here.

Fucking sociopath libertarians.

Am I to understand that the intellectually superior and enlightened left, when failing to carry the argument, resorts to name calling? If that's what four years of Harvard or Yale got you then I suggest you ask them for a refund.

A policy must be judged by its results, not it's intentions. I'll concede that we haven't yet seen the full effects of ObamaCare, but in general the record of government policy as cost savings is mixed at best (and that's being very generous to the pro-government side). In my opinion, the only way to fully realize the necessary efficiency and cost savings in health care is to introduce market competition and the best way to do that is by eliminating the tax deduction on employer provided insurance and allowing people to choose whatever insurance plan suits them best, regardless of which company offers it or where they're incorporated. ObamaCare does neither of these things and so will fail to get at the heart of the problem which is too much third party pay in health care. If you're truly willing to hear an honest alternative argument on health care, one that's rarely heard anymore above the din of the left and the entrenched interests, then I challenge you to read: How to Cure Health Care and to watch Living Within our Means. At the very least you'll read and hear about policies and ideas that are worthy of an intelligent person with an open mind.

To prove anything about the net effect, you would need to look at every drug ever approved, disapproved, or not developed due to the FDA process and sum of their net effects.

There certainly are lots of doctors who have carefully followed every drug approved, delayed or not developed over the last few decades. (The FDA almost never rejects a drug; they usually say that more evidence is needed. If a company can't get evidence that the drug works, then they drop the drug because it's a market failure, not because of the FDA.)

I've read articles by those doctors in the medical journals. A cardiologist, for example, doesn't have to look up the drugs. There are cardiologists who have followed every prospective and approved heart drug during a career of 20 or 30 years. They have a pretty good idea of what works and how well it works, based on their own experience and on the clinical trials. They have well-established ways of quantifying the benefits. (Peltzman and the other U. Chicago economists have said that doctors are able to assess the value of new drugs in the marketplace alone, even without the randomized, controlled studies that the FDA requires.)

Look up Steven Nissen's writing, and Marcia Angell's writing. Cardiologists like Steven Nissen point to many FDA-approved drugs over the past decades that have done more harm than good (in terms of lives saved vs. lost), and published the kind of analysis that you describe in the New England Journal of Medicine and elsewhere. He thinks that the number of drugs that had to be withdrawn for safety reasons has increased as a result of the user fees, and that the FDA is approving too many dangerous drugs.

As for drugs in development, the cardiology meetings are full of reports on promising new drugs, and there are lots of cardiologists who follow them from tissue culture to mice to human trials. Nobody is hiding these things. I haven't seen any mainstream doctors complaining that there are promising drugs that aren't being developed, for FDA reasons or any other. That's something that conservative economists say, but it's not something that pharmacists and doctors say.

I can't convince you of this. You just have to go to the medical literature and read the articles yourself. I can't summarize 25 articles for you. And I don't think that would convince you. All I can say is, look at the facts.

As for Krugman, I can't help but think you are trolling by actually googling "the government is so wonderful." Read his articles regularly and you will understand that is the message he is sending, not the exact phrase he is uttering. Yes, it is an overstatement but so is "the market is so wonderful." As a side note, Friedman (and other libertarians), also think the government does (or should do) important things that the market can't do. An environmental example is at ~8:50 into this video: http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/26936

Yes, it is an overstatement. Krugman is a liberal, not a socialist. Even the socialists and Communists (in China, Cuba, etc.) don't believe that the government can do everything. The issue is whether the U.S. government is too big, and should be starved to death (no exaggeration) as the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Grover Norquist say, or whether it's already smaller than the optimum efficient size. Krugman says that taxes particularly on the rich are lower than they've been in a century, lower than they've been during the times of greatest industrial development, and lower than any other developed country. He says that in the past government has invested in things like the Erie Canal that private operators wouldn't have invested in, that returned their investment many times over, and it would be good for the economy to make more investments like that right now. I agree. If you want more new drugs, increase the budget of the National Institutes of Health (which the Republican congress has reduced, in constant dollars). Don't weaken the FDA safety regulations; that won't raise any incentives for new drugs.

"A" is obviously a good thing. "B" is obviously a bad thing. "C" is a bad thing whether you could have "only" given someone 3 more months to live or you could have cured their disease and prevented their death from it. Yes, there are varying degrees of "C" but it is a negative effect (bad thing) no matter how you spin it.

The question is, do the positives ("A") outweigh the negatives ("B" and "C").
Citing specific examples of "A", "B", or "C" does not prove anything other than they happen. I can't see how there would be disagreement that they all happen/exist. The disagreement is about the frequency and impact of "A", "B", and "C". To prove anything about the net effect, you would need to look at every drug ever approved, disapproved, or not developed due to the FDA process and sum of their net effects.

As for Krugman, I can't help but think you are trolling by actually googling "the government is so wonderful." Read his articles regularly and you will understand that is the message he is sending, not the exact phrase he is uttering. Yes, it is an overstatement but so is "the market is so wonderful." As a side note, Friedman (and other libertarians), also think the government does (or should do) important things that the market can't do. An environmental example is at ~8:50 into this video: http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/26936

Here is the excerpt:
ROBINSON: The Food and Drug Administration which regulates everything from the drugs that pharmaceutical companies may put on the market to the ingredients in items we purchase off the grocery store shelves. Let me give you an example- Thalidomide [FRIEDMAN Everybody's favorite example...] Well I may be leading with my chin on this one but I'm going to lead with it anyway. 50's and 60's it is marketed in Europe as a drug to help women get through the nausea that they sometimes experience during pregnancy. The Food and Drug Administration said it had been inadequately tested in the United States and forbade it to be marketed in this country with the result that thousands of children were born with horrible birth defects in Europe to mothers who had used Thalidomide but that didn't happen to American children, because the FDA had intervened and kept that drug off the market. Thank god for the FDA, right?

FRIEDMAN Wrong [ROBINSON Alright, why?] this is a case in which they did save lives, this was a good case, but suppose they are equally slow in adopting a drug which turns out to be very good and beneficial. How would you ever see the lives that are lost because of that? You're an FDA official, you have a question of whether to approve or disapprove a new drug. If you approve it and it turns out to be a bad drug like Thalidomide, you're in the soup, your name is going to be on every front page [ROBINSON cost me my job, I get hauled up to Congress to testify..] right. On the other hand if you disapprove it, but it turns out to be good, well then later on you approve it four or five years later, nobody's going to complain about the fact that you didn't approve it earlier except those greedy pharmaceutical companies that want make profits at the expense of the public, as everybody will say. So the result is that the pressure on the FDA is always to be late in approving. And there's enormous evidence that they have caused more deaths by late approvals than they have saved by early approval.

Religious practice by itself is associated with $1,388 more given per year than we would expect to see from a secular person (with the same political views, income, education, age, race, and other characteristics), as well as with 6.5 more occasions of volunteering.

And the source.

I found the article you pointed to at the Conceptual Guerilla to be an interesting piece at a site devoted to cutting edge progressive thought and politics. I think I've found a companion piece of similar gravitas over at The People's Cube.

Of course no web article is going to cover material like this in any real depth. Anyone wishing to explore related themes may want to consider some of the following books by prominent African American economist Thomas Sowell:

Marxism: Philosophy and economics
Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles
Affirmative Action around the World: An Empirical Study
Race and Culture: A World View
Intellectuals and Society
Basic Economics 4th Ed: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy
Economic Facts and Fallacies: Second Edition
The Housing Boom and Bust, Revised Edition
Black Rednecks and White Liberals
Dismantling America: And Other Controversial Essays by Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell will never have the following of a Chomsky, but then he doesn't have Chomsky's genocide denier problem. (Cambodian genocide)

Politics vs. Economics - Short-term decisions have long-term effects
Evil-Man Economics

Now I have to defend this one. This is exactly the stuff Rove used to specialize in. So how does the truth make it a troll? Karl Rove was Bush's strategist when they came up with their "Clean Air Plan" and their "Healthy Forest Plan." The first rolled back much of the Clean Air Act and the second allowed for logging on government/national Parks. So when is pointing out that a technique that the parent observes Google using was also used by Bush's former strategest a troll? Or does the truth hurt mf?

It's the companies that the insurance companies pay. They're robbing us all blind.

Call it what you will, but it makes perfect economic sense. Overcharging and lack of transparency in pricing of goods and services is the inevitable result of any payment arrangement in which you pay someone else to pay the bill for you; especially when you cannot easily see what the price would otherwise be if you bought directly from the seller in the open marketplace. For a full explanation of the "Third Party Payer Problem" as it relates to healthcare, I recommend the following article. Third party pay isn't the only thing wrong with health care in the United States but it is a large part of it and perhaps the largest single part.

and yet it is still superior to the fucking joke of a broken health care system that the usa operates under.

It is not exactly a revelation to say that the present United States health care system is flawed. In fact it's just about the only thing that most people can agree on when it comes to health care and public policy in this country.

in terms of bureaucracy (yes, bureaucracy: the government is the only one who can bury you in paperwork?), access to preventative care, quality, cost, both on a national level and a personal level

I believe that you have misunderstood my line of argument. There are indeed private components to the present system, such as health insurance companies, hospitals, drug companies, etc and it is true that these private firms have accumulated a byzantine system of paperwork and bureaucracy in their roles as providers of health care in the United States. HOWEVER (and this is important), these large and inefficient corporations are just the sort that one should expect in a system so heavily regulated by the government. The government interferes directly with all sorts of laws governing just about every step of health care delivery and indirectly through tax policies which incentivize consumers to make inefficient choices when purchasing health care. Now listen up because this is important: most of the inefficiencies in the present US system are the result of over-regulation, restriction of competition and poor tax policy...by the government. The government sets the rules of the game and they have set the rules in such a way, knowingly or not, so as to create the most cost inefficient possible health care system (i.e. the one we have today). The Milton Friedman article, which I also linked previously in this thread, discusses both the history and the effects of these inefficiencies over the decades leading up to 2001 (the date of publication and the issues are still timely, even after the "reforms" written into law but as yet not implemented by the Obama administration). The case is well documented with sources cited in that article. So don't blame the private sector for playing the game the government designed, blame the government for setting up such an inane game in the first place.

dude just look at obvious healthcare measures like longevity, newborn survival, cost (YES COST!), etc: comparing the usa to other industrial countries with universal healthcare. its a no brainer,

The comparison is meaningless because you are ignoring many other factors which influence newborn survival, longevity and even costs. What about different cultural and lifestyle preferences? For example, many Americans enjoy eating high calorie and high fat diets while exercising little. It is likely that such people will have poor health outcomes no matter what the health care system looks like. Even with costs the issue is muddled. There are many ways to assess costs other than direct costs paid out of pocket. What about the high taxes which are necessary in every country which implements universal health care? Aren't those also a cost? You seem to believe that if you don't pay the tax directly, but instead tax the wealthy, you as a participant in that economy will not be effected. Even a cursory look at the high cost of living and the persistently high unemployment in Europe demonstrates the fallacy of that presumption. Permanently high taxes, of the sort required to pay for universal health care and other expansive government programs, severely distort the economy; preventing scarce resources from being allocated to their most efficient uses. This makes everyone poorer in the end and reduces average standards of living in general. Health care is important, but surely it is not the only thing in life that is important. As with any good or service, what we gain from additional resources spent must be weighed against what we g

the europeans have better healthcare and pay less for it

The Europeans pay for their healthcare with more than just their taxes. In Europe the cost of every day living is very high compared to most places in the United States. The health care may cost them less at the point of sale, but it certainly doesn't cost them less overall. One must consider the total picture in such things not just "this good or service costs more than this one".

why?...because its MANDATORY

That's interesting. If we can lower the price of health care simply by making it a mandatory purchase what else can we lower the price on by making it mandatory? Perhaps we should make it mandatory for everyone to buy an iPhone, because then the price will be lower. Why stop there? Why not make the purchase of every good and service in the whole economy mandatory, because clearly that would lower the price, right? How can adding more overhead to a market transaction, which is what we do when we involve the government, possibly lower the price at the point of sale? In fact it cannot. The sources of high cost in the United States health care system, for example, are well known, but due to a variety of special interests, nothing much ever changes. I will not cite the numerous sources here, because this has already been discussed ad-nauseam both here on Slashdot and elsewhere, but suffice it to say that there are 3 primary reasons why health care costs in the United States are high:

1. Third Party Payer: In effect most Americans, those with health insurance anyway, are paying someone else to pay the bill for them, a bill where the true costs are hidden behind layers of bureaucracy. They view whatever premiums they have paid as a "sunk cost" and proceed to get as much health care, whether they need it or not, as possible to "get their money's worth". This is further exacerbated by the fact that health insurance in the United States is peculiar among all other forms of insurance in that it pays something on just about everything. The auto insurance company doesn't split the cost of gasoline or oil changes with you, but your health insurance company pays part of your regular prescriptions, doctor visits, long term care and many other regular, non-emergency and recurring expenses. So in effect we have a system where the consumer is insulated from the true cost, pays essentially a single entrance fee for "all you can eat" and gets co-payments on just about everything that isn't part of the regular "buffet".
2. The Tax Code: The present US tax code incentives people to receive their health care through their employer which is both inefficient and overall more expensive. The tax code has distorted the rational choice of the individual, by providing a special income tax deduction for health care, to purchase that care in the manner that results in the greatest collective inefficiency to society. Again we see how government interference in the market for health care has had many far reaching consequences, both foreseen and unforeseen. Either the deduction needs to be eliminated OR it needs to be extended to all health care, whether purchased through the employer or not.
3. Attorneys: The lawyers and their medical malpractice lawsuits, class action and otherwise, touch all aspects of the health care system and drive up prices with each settlement. All of us pay more for health care because of the attorneys and the tort bar.

Of course, this barely scratches the surface on a topic as complex as health care, but might I suggest the following article, written by the late Milton Friedman, on How to Cure Healthcare? It's really too bad that Obama's health care bill doesn't meaningfully address any of these core problems. I suspect that we will be revisiting the issue again under a new president sometime before 2020.

do you support the idea of a driver without driv

Eh, what are you talking about?

Found resources by drilling more oil? Gee that was hard, anyhow Russian military is a joke -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7837342.stm. Everything that is still valuable, like the nuclear industry, was built in Soviet time, and hasn't yet completely fallen in disarray, this applies to the space agency as well; for comparison the budget of NASA for 2009 is 17 Billion, Roscosmos 2.4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Federal_Space_Agency) even if everything is very cheap in Russia, which is not, the difference is staggering.

About nuclear power -- let me remind you in which country Chernobyl happened and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seversk, and lots of other really bad things. As much as I like the idea of nuclear power, Russia doesn't have a particularly good track record using it even for 'peaceful purposes'. Anyhow, the latest government's pet project is this -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station which in my view seems to be a rather dumb idea.

There's no manufacturing capacity to speak of, most of the manufacturing facilities built in Soviet Union are now gone, you have no idea how hard Soviet economy crashed, all that's left, are manufactures that prepackage and deliver raw materials like oil, natural gas, nickel, aluminum, the list goes on. There's also a car maker that is getting bailed out over and over again -- http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/united-russia-to-save-avtovaz/390702.html and if you think that GM and Chrysler got a sweet deal from the government, think again. On a related note, Americans really don't appreciate American cars.

The myth that Russia is strong and it is rising is perpetuated by the Russian government to disguise the fact that those who in charge are just interested pumping more oil, and if you don't approve of current government, you want Russia to fail, I am not kidding -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Gryzlov#Memorable_quotes, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704187204575101510173019130.html

Russia is slowly dying and things will not change unless the resent government suddenly vanishes. I read on some forum in 2002 or so that Mr. Putin's Russia will end up being a version of Soviet Union with healthcare system, army and education removed and it seems that that's the way it has been going all these years.

  Also a paper to about a downfall of Soviet Union, I don't think that too many things have changed since then -- http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/72997307.html

Grond (15515), who appears to be a computer scientist and hobbyist paralegal.

I am a computer scientist (BA and MS), but I'm not a 'hobbyist paralegal.' I have my JD and work full time as an academic researcher with the Stanford University Hoover Institution Project on Commercializing Innovation. This is no secret. I've said as much a few times before here on Slashdot, and if you nose around a bit you can even find my CV on the Project website.

Excuse me, but the points the parent made about government run (or even government subsidized) health care are not garbage. The bottom line is this: if someone else buys something for you (i.e. they spend either their own or someone else's money on you) then they have a say on issues related to that purchase. You want to eat that big mac? sorry, no fast food allowed for those on Uncle Sam's health plan. How about a beer? No way! What about a smoke? fahgeddaboutit.

Don't think this can happen in America? Think again. Once healthcare becomes the number one ongoing expense of government, there will be tremendous pressure to regulate, tax, or even ban as necessary in an effort to control costs. For example, high taxes on sugary sodas and other "unhealthy" beverages or fatty and calorie dense foods. How about some more of those QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years)? You might be to old to get the hip or knee replacement, here is your pill instead. Finally, the gravest insult is banning of private payment for extra medical services in an attempt to lower costs by granting the government monopsony (single-buyer) power. In other words, you may not pay for that hip replacement yourself if the government has already turned you down on the government run plan. This has actually happened to some extant in Britain under the NHS where some cancer patients, for example, have run afoul of the private pay rules by paying out of pocket for drugs which were not covered by NHS. I understand that some "adjustments" have been made to allow private "topping off" in some cases now in Britain, but they addressed the specific case of drugs rather than other issues of "no private pay" (i.e. the problem could come up again in a different context next time).

Being forced to purchase insurance, the insurance is paid for by your employer whether you want it or not.

The unusual employer sponsored health benefits here in the United States are the result of an accident of history dating back to WWII (when wage and price controls were in effect and employers competed for top employees by offering fringe non-monetary benefits) which has been perpetuated and perversely incentivized through special exemptions in the tax code. In fact, the single best thing that the government could do to improve healthcare in the United States would be to eliminate or equalize the tax treatment of income spent on health insurance so that there is no special tax advantages for insurance provided by the employer versus private individual or group purchases. This will not happen (of course) because of the powerful interests on all sides lined up against this who benefit from the present peculiar tax situation. However, it is still worthwhile to state the ideal so that people can at least understand where the health care problems are really coming from.

BTW: For a really good explanation of what is wrong with health care in the United States and how to fix it, check out: How to Cure Healthcare.

Conclusion: Medical Savings Accounts and Beyond
The high cost and inequitable character of our medical care system are the direct result of our steady movement toward reliance on third-party payment. A cure requires reversing course, reprivatizing medical care by eliminating most third-party payment, and restoring the role of insurance to providing protection against major medical catastrophes.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3459466.html

Actually, there isn't. The mortality rate for common cancers such as prostate and breast cancer are almost twice as high in the UK. You don't even have to cherry pick search results! You will be satisfied that they do mention the early screening in the US, they also mention that 20% of treatable cancers become untreatable while sitting on waiting lists. Sadly I couldn't find the article I was looking for that also shows that the UK has more deaths caused by coronary disease as well. Shucks.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649#_edn1

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/49525427.html

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj_american_cancer_care_beats_the_rest.htm

Sounds like someone is trying to introduce the "Culture War" Anti-Pattern into the FOSS Community:
Read more here: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3484376.html
(FYI, this is not a perfect article, and explains things in terms of contemporary American politics, not the FOSS community, but does give a good description of the anti-pattern nonetheless.)

The democrats don't want "head on debate", because such debates always involve propaganda from the bill's opponents.

It is possible to conduct the debate in a setting where such propaganda would not be able to interfere, but it would require a more formal setting and rules. The series of debates recently conducted by The Economist provide good examples of how real debates should be conducted.

the Republicans have been pushing flat-out lies about this bill. Like "death panels".

This is true. The "death panels" and "pulling the plug on grandma" were equally bad and dishonest tactics. However, two wrongs don't make a right as they say.

Or that it constitutes socialism.

If a system is not voluntary then it is socialism. Whether this is a good or bad thing depends upon your points of view, but we should not confuse socialism with freedom because in fact they are opposites.

Lots of capitalist countries have socialized medicine...it's not the same thing as a socialist economy.

It takes one major sector of the economy and socializes it. Again, whether you believe that is good or bad depends upon your point of view but it means that some part of the economy is now socialist. Socialism is an easy concept to grasp. It sounds good to many people and it is easy to understand the appeal, but the promises of socialism often ring empty in the end. The arguments for freedom, free enterprise and free trade on the other hand are much more subtle and difficult to understand. However, they ultimately produce a better and more prosperous society where they are allowed to grow and reach their full potential.

If you believe that socialized medicine is a good idea then ask yourself this: if taxes are high to pay for, among other things, universal single-payer health care would you feel like working as much or as hard? In the UK, for example, taxes are very high in order to pay for the National Health Service. High taxes create disincentives to work on an individual basis AND they create disincentives for businesses to hire additional workers. As former prime minister Margaret Thatcher put it, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money".

I believe that we could have the best system in the world, better than what we have right now and better than socialized systems overseas, if we would just following this plan, which was proposed by Milton Friedman back in 2001 (he was a bit ahead of the times on the health care debate). So actually, a lot of us want the same thing: good quality health care at reasonable prices. We simply disagree on the best means to obtain it.

Ordinarily I don't reply to trolls. Howver, I felt compelled to respond in this case due to the completely false portrayal of my own position on the health care debate; which, I might add, was neither stated nor implied by my previous post; which focused on why the left resorts to dishonest chicanery to sell their bill while attacking critics with vicious ad-hominem instead of arguing the merits.

The parent should remember that most of us, at least those who have insurance, do not pay for it directly. We receive our health insurance through our employers and the price is reflected somewhat in our wages in that, at least theoretically, those wages are lower than they otherwise would be if we did not receive health insurance as part of the bargain. In fact, the only reason why most of us presently get our health insurance through our employers is due to an accident of history, dating back to WWII, and continued up to the present day through perverse incentives in the tax codes. For those who are interested might I suggest the following article?

Now as for all of us paying through higher hospital bills, if the parent had taken the time to read my entire original post then he would have seen that I do indeed acknowledge that hospitals pass costs onto patients who are both more able and have greater incentives to pay (i.e. they have assets and they care about their credit). However, it is NOT true that all of us use the same amount of hospital services. Some of us use more and some of us use less. I myself have been in hospitals only a couple of times in my entire life thus far and none recently (last 10 years). So, even if it did cost somewhat more I am probably still ahead of the cost curve on hospital expenses vs having to pay regularly for 10 years (through taxes) even though I didn't use any hospital services. I suspect that many younger people fall into this same category.

Finally, the tone of the parent in suggesting that "public health care creates freedom" suggests that he is not among those of us who pay a lot of the taxes in this country. I am now in the top quintile (according to the IRS) and let me tell you, I pay a lot of taxes. If paying even more taxes creates "more freedom" then it certainly isn't creating it for me. Lastly, if the parent is going to ask me to pay for his health care through higher taxes then he can at least extend me some common courtesy and ask nicely instead of spitting in my face and demanding that I pay to take care of him (the sense of entitlement among some on the left is really quite incredible actually).

There is not a positive thing that has come out of software patents.

Google was able to rise to dominate search and challenge Microsoft primarily because of its numerous software patents. Without those patents, Microsoft, Altavista, Yahoo, or any other company could have used Page Rank and other algorithms covered by Google's dozens of software patents. Only part of Google's success is its good web design and marketing savvy. A huge part is the fact that it just plain does search better than almost anybody else.

Remember: Microsoft rose to dominance at a time when software was not patentable. That's one of the reasons why Embrace, Extend, Extinguish worked so well: without software patents there was nothing to stop Microsoft from embracing the new inventions of others.

The quality of software hasn't improved

Software quality (as in lack of bugs, bloat, etc) is not something that software patents address, at least not directly. What they address is the invention and commercialization of new features.

patent trolls are numerous

They are not particularly numerous, nor are they particularly unique to software. Only about 3000 patent infringement cases are filed in the US each year, and only about 300 of those go to trial. Trolls are a very small subset of that and hardly numerous. Furthermore, the existence of trolls has more to do with the presumption of patent validity and the inability of the PTO to find every piece of prior art than it does the patent eligibility of software implemented inventions.

because of software patents there are many incompatibilities in software that lead to many, many problems.

That's a very strong claim. Do you have evidence of it?

Can someone please tell me how software patents are promoting the progress of science/useful arts?

Copyright protection of software only extends to the specific implementation (i.e., the literal source and machine code). Patents protect the idea behind the implementation. This is an important distinction.

Say an inventor comes up with a brilliant new algorithm for efficiently and accurately modeling fluids on a computer. There are many possible applications: computer graphics, weather simulation, etc. The inventor would like to maximize his or her profit from the invention. Now, with copyright the inventor could write a program for each and every possible use and form a company to sell copies as copyrighted programs. But that's an awful lot of work for one person, especially if the inventor is a good inventor but a bad business person or doesn't know much about some of the possible application domains.

With software patents, the inventor can patent the invention and then either sell the patent to an established company or license the patent to different companies for different uses: one company gets the rights to use it in computer games, another to use it in weather simulation, etc. This lets each company best use its comparative advantage, which maximizes the benefit to consumers while minimizing inefficiencies.

Now you might say the inventor could keep the invention a trade secret and give it to the companies under a non-disclosure agreement. That's true, but then the public would never find out about the invention. The beauty of patents is that they let inventors and commercializers profit from an invention while still disclosing the invention to the public, which can freely use the invention after the patent expires. This is all true in software just as it is in more traditional fields of invention. Software is not special, and I say that as someone with both bachelor's and master's degrees in computer science.

Full Disclosure: I work for the team that wrote the amicus brief of Dr. Ananda Chakrabarty (he of the Diamond v. Chakrabarty Supreme Court case that established the patentability of genetically modified organisms).

There is not a positive thing that has come out of software patents.

Google was able to rise to dominate search and challenge Microsoft primarily because of its numerous software patents. Without those patents, Microsoft, Altavista, Yahoo, or any other company could have used Page Rank and other algorithms covered by Google's dozens of software patents. Only part of Google's success is its good web design and marketing savvy. A huge part is the fact that it just plain does search better than almost anybody else.

Remember: Microsoft rose to dominance at a time when software was not patentable. That's one of the reasons why Embrace, Extend, Extinguish worked so well: without software patents there was nothing to stop Microsoft from embracing the new inventions of others.

The quality of software hasn't improved

Software quality (as in lack of bugs, bloat, etc) is not something that software patents address, at least not directly. What they address is the invention and commercialization of new features.

patent trolls are numerous

They are not particularly numerous, nor are they particularly unique to software. Only about 3000 patent infringement cases are filed in the US each year, and only about 300 of those go to trial. Trolls are a very small subset of that and hardly numerous. Furthermore, the existence of trolls has more to do with the presumption of patent validity and the inability of the PTO to find every piece of prior art than it does the patent eligibility of software implemented inventions.

because of software patents there are many incompatibilities in software that lead to many, many problems.

That's a very strong claim. Do you have evidence of it?

Can someone please tell me how software patents are promoting the progress of science/useful arts?

Copyright protection of software only extends to the specific implementation (i.e., the literal source and machine code). Patents protect the idea behind the implementation. This is an important distinction.

Say an inventor comes up with a brilliant new algorithm for efficiently and accurately modeling fluids on a computer. There are many possible applications: computer graphics, weather simulation, etc. The inventor would like to maximize his or her profit from the invention. Now, with copyright the inventor could write a program for each and every possible use and form a company to sell copies as copyrighted programs. But that's an awful lot of work for one person, especially if the inventor is a good inventor but a bad business person or doesn't know much about some of the possible application domains.

With software patents, the inventor can patent the invention and then either sell the patent to an established company or license the patent to different companies for different uses: one company gets the rights to use it in computer games, another to use it in weather simulation, etc. This lets each company best use its comparative advantage, which maximizes the benefit to consumers while minimizing inefficiencies.

Now you might say the inventor could keep the invention a trade secret and give it to the companies under a non-disclosure agreement. That's true, but then the public would never find out about the invention. The beauty of patents is that they let inventors and commercializers profit from an invention while still disclosing the invention to the public, which can freely use the invention after the patent expires. This is all true in software just as it is in more traditional fields of invention. Software is not special, and I say that as someone with both bachelor's and master's degrees in computer science.

Full Disclosure: I work for the team that wrote the amicus brief of Dr. Ananda Chakrabarty (he of the Diamond v. Chakrabarty Supreme Court case that established the patentability of genetically modified organisms).

But this ignores the constitutional requirement that it promote progress:

It is not obvious that business method patents hinder the progress of the useful arts, and merely stating it does not make it so. But if you have a good argument for why business methods are contrary to the constitutional purpose of patents, then by all means compose and submit an amicus curiae brief in support of the Respondent. The due date is October 2nd. You don't have to be an attorney to submit an amicus brief on your own behalf.

In this case the U.S. is one of very few nations to support software patents.

This case is not about software patents. Here are the questions presented in the case:

1. Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding that a "process" must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different state or thing ("machine-or-transformation" test), to be eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101, despite this Court's precedent declining to limit the broad statutory grant of patent eligibility for "any" new and useful process beyond excluding patents for "laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas."

2. Whether the Federal Circuit's "machine-or-transformation" test for patent eligibility, which effectively forecloses meaningful patent protection to many business methods, contradicts the clear Congressional intent that patents protect "method[s] of doing or conducting business." 35 U.S.C. 273.

Now it is true that the case has implications for software patents, diagnostic method patents, etc, but concerns about software patents and the like will be, at most, secondary public policy considerations in the Court's decision making process.

That said, the point about international harmonization is that other countries and the EPO have broad definitions of patent eligible subject matter. The EPO, for example, says "European patents shall be granted for any inventions which are susceptible of industrial application, which are new and which involve an inventive step" with the further proviso that the invention must be of a technical character. Now, the EPO has a specific exclusion for business methods, but it is just that: a specific exclusion. The test of patentable subject matter remains broad. The argument is that the US should do the same: broad patentable subject matter with (if necessary) specific exclusions as determined by Congress rather than the courts. As it so happens, there are many good arguments that Congress has not yet excluded (and might never exclude) business methods from patent eligibility.

Full Disclosure: I work for the team that wrote the amicus brief of Dr. Ananda Chakrabarty (he of the Diamond v. Chakrabarty Supreme Court case that established the patentability of genetically modified organisms).

But this ignores the constitutional requirement that it promote progress:

It is not obvious that business method patents hinder the progress of the useful arts, and merely stating it does not make it so. But if you have a good argument for why business methods are contrary to the constitutional purpose of patents, then by all means compose and submit an amicus curiae brief in support of the Respondent. The due date is October 2nd. You don't have to be an attorney to submit an amicus brief on your own behalf.

In this case the U.S. is one of very few nations to support software patents.

This case is not about software patents. Here are the questions presented in the case:

1. Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding that a "process" must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different state or thing ("machine-or-transformation" test), to be eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101, despite this Court's precedent declining to limit the broad statutory grant of patent eligibility for "any" new and useful process beyond excluding patents for "laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas."

2. Whether the Federal Circuit's "machine-or-transformation" test for patent eligibility, which effectively forecloses meaningful patent protection to many business methods, contradicts the clear Congressional intent that patents protect "method[s] of doing or conducting business." 35 U.S.C. 273.

Now it is true that the case has implications for software patents, diagnostic method patents, etc, but concerns about software patents and the like will be, at most, secondary public policy considerations in the Court's decision making process.

That said, the point about international harmonization is that other countries and the EPO have broad definitions of patent eligible subject matter. The EPO, for example, says "European patents shall be granted for any inventions which are susceptible of industrial application, which are new and which involve an inventive step" with the further proviso that the invention must be of a technical character. Now, the EPO has a specific exclusion for business methods, but it is just that: a specific exclusion. The test of patentable subject matter remains broad. The argument is that the US should do the same: broad patentable subject matter with (if necessary) specific exclusions as determined by Congress rather than the courts. As it so happens, there are many good arguments that Congress has not yet excluded (and might never exclude) business methods from patent eligibility.

Full Disclosure: I work for the team that wrote the amicus brief of Dr. Ananda Chakrabarty (he of the Diamond v. Chakrabarty Supreme Court case that established the patentability of genetically modified organisms).

The 44 amicus curiae briefs that have been filed so far are only those submitted in support of the Petitioners (i.e., the inventors Bilski and Warsaw) or in support of neither party. Amicus briefs in support of the Respondent (i.e., the Patent Office) will be submitted after the Respondent's merits brief is submitted, which will occur on or before September 25. Once the merits brief is submitted, amici have 7 days to submit briefs in support of the Respondent.

While I don't expect there to be quite the same volume of briefs supporting the PTO as the Petitioner, there will probably be at least a few.

Here is the the Supreme Court docket for the case.

Full Disclosure: I work for the team that wrote the brief of Dr. Ananda Chakrabarty (he of the Diamond v. Chakrabarty Supreme Court case that established the patentability of genetically modified organisms).

The 44 amicus curiae briefs that have been filed so far are only those submitted in support of the Petitioners (i.e., the inventors Bilski and Warsaw) or in support of neither party. Amicus briefs in support of the Respondent (i.e., the Patent Office) will be submitted after the Respondent's merits brief is submitted, which will occur on or before September 25. Once the merits brief is submitted, amici have 7 days to submit briefs in support of the Respondent.

While I don't expect there to be quite the same volume of briefs supporting the PTO as the Petitioner, there will probably be at least a few.

Here is the the Supreme Court docket for the case.

Full Disclosure: I work for the team that wrote the brief of Dr. Ananda Chakrabarty (he of the Diamond v. Chakrabarty Supreme Court case that established the patentability of genetically modified organisms).

MOD THIS THREAD UP PLEASE.

The parent and grandparent are EXACTLY right. The problem with health insurance is that it pays a little bit on everything whereas every other type of insurance on the market: flood, earthquake, fire, auto, etc...is all designed to protect from unforeseen and large expenses that are infrequent or unlikely, but can be very expensive when they do happen. That is what insurance is all about. Do you insure your house against the cost of mowing the lawn? Do you, as the grandparent suggests, split the cost of an oil change or a fill up with your auto insurance company as a "co-pay"? Certainly not, so why then should health insurance be peculiar among all other types? Why can't people save enough money or alter their spending so that they can simply pay for routine care and expenses out of their own pocket as they do for other necessary things in their lives? IMHO, the burden is on the socialized medicine people to explain why health insurance is UNIQUE among all other types of insurance and cannot be left in the hands of private insurance and instead must be provided by the government making regular third-party (i.e. the worst and least efficient kind) payments on routine citizen needs. After all, if the government was or is so efficient at providing health care then why not have them provide other things too like cars, vacations, computers, designer clothing, and everything else that people want.

If people really want to learn about How To Cure Health Care then they should read the linked article.

The only way left to continue the desired cycle and free up credit would be to take resources from the rich, and give it to folks who would actually spend those resources in the process of just living day to day, which would open up the credit markets again, increase demand for products, and so on.

Interesting post Ryan. However, I disagree about the need to take resources from the rich or perhaps I look at it from a different perspective. The rich can keep what they have but the working class who are creating the wealth that flows predominantly into the pockets of a few need to have a more equitable portion of the wealth they help generate.

By just about any economic measure the majority of the citizens in the United States have experienced a gradual decline in their share of the wealth generated by this country. This has resulted in a decrease in disposable household income which I believe individuals have attempted to make up for by utilizing credit.

Sadly people have not been paying attention to their falling portion of the national wealth and were likely lulled into a false sense of security by the housing bubble. Unfortunately now that the bubble has burst the average citizen is getting two strikes for the outrageous household debt and the falling participation in the GDP of the nation. In some cases people get a third strike by losing their job.

There has to be a better way.

How to Cure Health Care by Milton Friedman

Employer provided health insurance, no matter how extravagant, is by law explicitly exempted from being taxed as income to the employee by either state or federal governments. In fact, the actual amount is deductible from the taxes of the business as a business expense or cost of doing business. This is one of several factors which encourage high health care costs here in the United States (the others being 3d party split payment of expenses, uncapped lawsuit liability damages, and poor consumer information about what goods and services are being provided and their relative level of quality). If you are interested in why health care is expensive then I recommend the following article: