That article is examining why it is that free market principles have not been applied to broadband and different takes on what to do about it.
Its bias is that free market principles are desirable in that space. This does not support your assertion.
"I think it is clear that people at TD see the word regulation as default good, and free market as default bad."
I can only speak for myself, but I see regulation as inherently neither good nor bad. It is a necessary tool, and it can be used both to enhance freedom and liberty and to suppress it.
Regulation is a powerful and dangerous tool, though, and needs to be handled with due caution and care.
Whaa?!
Well, that beats the asparagus water, which didn't have toxicity going for it.
http://www.eater.com/2015/8/3/9090797/whole-foods-asparagus-water-wtf
Without any regulation, the free market devolves into monopoly.
The USPTO has no interest (and should have no interest) in the truth or falsity of trademarks. Their only legitimate interest is in the possibility of consumer confusion.
The FTC, however, might.
If a company is bought out, the only thing that matters is existing contracts. I'm not sure there are many judges who would consider a "pledge" as having any real weight.
And if the pledge does get in the way, it wouldn't stop the company from selling the patents to someone else who aren't bound by any pledge.
(I know nothing of this specific case, so am speaking generally)
I don't think the issue is whether or not terrible speech has some form of punishment as much as whether that punishment should be imposed by the government.
But this is a cultural question, really. As an American, I'm in no position to criticize the balance other nations choose.
"but jamming data is not."
Umm, yes, it is. Jamming is illegal regardless of what it is you are jamming.
I believe that on this subject we differ more in timeline and temperament than in philosophy.
I tip my hat to you! I also strongly, particularly in these times, that we need both the radical and the, well, whatever the hell I am.
Yeah, this is how I feel.
The only time trolling really irritates me is when it takes over the comments, and no effective discussion related to the actual article can take place. But that sort of thing is the fault of everyone engaging the troll more than anything (I'm guilty of this from time to time).
Left unchecked, trolling can destroy destroy a community, though. The classic example would be the YouTube comment section of old. A comment section like that is no better than not having a comment section at all.
My favorite approach to the whole issue is Slashdot's, although it is certainly imperfect. Techdirt's works well enough, too, although I do wish there was a way to collapse comment threads. I think that would allow people who love to troll or be trolled to do their thing, but still keep it usable for those who aren't interested.
Personally, I think that's overstating it by quite a lot. The US is not there quite yet. However, I agree that the trend has been toward increasing tyranny.
The reason I stay optimistic is that this is not new territory for the US. We've been here a couple times before in history, and have managed not just to survive, but to come out of it a little better. It can be messy getting there, but we've done it before and we can do it again.
I guess I agree with Theodore Parker when he said that in the long view, the arc of history bends towards justice.
It's just that things can suck an awful lot in the short view.
That's a hard call. I think that what you're saying is true -- public awareness and education is critical.
However, TV campaigns cost a ton of cash, and the need to raise that cash can all too easily turn an outfit into little more than a fundraising operation.
I think the EFF does fantastic and invaluable work right now, and would hate to see that work adversely impacted by a new venture. I think that agencies (and people, and software, and so on) tend to be at their best when they "do one thing really well".
Perhaps what we need is a separate outfit to do that sort of work in conjunction with the EFF and such.
"Only about 1 in 6 arrests lead to a conviction that year. (perhaps plea bargains?)"
Plea bargains are agreements to plead guilty to a lesser offense. The person is still convicted, though, just for something else instead.
I agree. If I didn't engage in business activities, I would not personally know any attorneys whatsoever. Having contacts like that is excellent, but is an advantage that tons of people don't have.
I think the relevant concept might fall under "attractive nuisance".
Well, it all depends. I don't play Pokemon Go, so I don't know what mechanisms they have in place. For all I know, they are doing all the same things they did with Ingress, including being very slow about fixing erroneous placements.
This. And it's not just a computer thing -- it's a security thing.
An "attacker" is anyone who is trying to bypass your security measures. Who they are or what their intentions are is irrelevant.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look, on the screen! It's a commentor, it's a visitor, it's...
I have to admit that I'm a bit confused about what you're saying.
Do you believe that all regulation is bad and should be avoided?
If not, then your real disagreement is not about the existence of regulation but about what you consider to be acceptable regulation.
Do I have this right?