I know that and you know that. Now tell my hypothalamus that just because my stomach is empty doesn't mean I haven't had enough food.

Well, then _a_ model is reality. But it's not our model.

And now we get into the differentiations between "normal care", "prudent care", "stupid behavior", and "paranoid preparedness". Unfortunately the boundaries are subjective.

One thing that's currently regulated is "anticompetitive behavior". One example of such is lowering the price on your product enough to drive the competition out of business, absorbing the loss with your (presumably larger than theirs) cash reserves, and thereby becoming a monopoly provider.
Would you consider that behavior to be force, fraud, or okay? (Seriously, I'm curious how you would classify it. I could see arguments for each; they're pretty broad categories.)

I think it's less that "letting people warp what the encyclopedia looks like to them to fit their preconceptions" is a good idea, than that "letting people warp what's in the encyclopedia to fit their preconceptions" is a bad one.

The problem the poster seems to be trying to point out is that the term "Net Neutrality" gets thrown around a lot without having a solid meaningful definition. Yours looks good to me, but I bet if you asked 20 people what they thought it meant you'd get 22 answers and maybe two would be compatible with yours :)

You are right that some pot smokers think it is their right to smoke anywhere they want. I think you are projecting in that you seem to think BVis specifically holds that opinion as well, but I see nothing from him that indicates that.

Is Square a bad option? (I haven't heard anything particularly bad about them, but I don't pay a lot of attention to that field.)

Ah, you appear to be speaking of how it should be, rather than how it is. Fair enough, but not where I was going.

Honestly, I'm a little surprised that they can't require you to divulge the passcode. From what I've read, the 5th is construed to prevent the government from forcing you to create new evidence that could be used to convict you of something; it does not protect any existing evidence (in a safe, in a file cabinet, on your computer, etc), and compelling a defendant to make potential evidence available for examination has been legit for a long time. It's just that until now, if the defendant refused, there was usually a way to get at it anyway...

Not saying I'm unhappy about it, just surprised.

Except that the recipient (me) is already paying Comcast to deliver the bits. If they want to go to sender pays, then I get to start charging them for traffic that they send to my house.

And the cable companies get their shills in congress to tell the FCC "they are not common carriers, try again"

not limited to cash

of course not everyone thinks it's wrong. If everyone thought it was wrong we wouldn't be having this discussion. But a significant number of people seem to think that it's wrong for them, but are finding it harder and harder to avoid.

I think if redhat and debian were to make it an option but not a requirement, all this contention would go away, because everyone could just use what's right for them. But that's not how it's going.

Indeed, if there were existing telco services comparable to what they want to install, they wouldn't need to do it.