I also like giving the phone to one of my children. It is down right hilarious to hear a 3 year old get fed up with these scammers, mine really likes to tell stories and eventually tell the scammer to "Stop talking now! I'm trying to tell you something!". My 6 year old is a much better communicator but is very inquisitive and will ask them all sorts of questions.
Damn. I wish my wife would let me do that. My 3yo girl can scream loud enough to make ears bleed. And my eldest is a question a second. I should just hand him the phone, and say, "hey, this guy wants you to tell him all about Minecraft, Rainbow Loom, and Pokemon!!"
While I don't agree with you, I think it's improper that you have been modded troll. It is not trolling to expound an unpopular idea. You have some valid concerns that some of the arguments made in favor of NN could later be used to legitimize a second round of SOPA/PIPA style legislation. They've tried it before, and if we do not remain vigilant, they will certainly try again.
But I believe that the risks of gatekeepers like Comcast intentionally dicking with who gets to see what how fast. If we had true competition, I could get behind the libertarian ideals of "don't regulate companies too much." But in this instance, you get only one, maybe two if you're lucky, providers of high-speed DSL in an area. And in many areas, these guys are also the cable providers. Hell, mine even has it in the name: Consolidated. They are intentionally consolidating services. They claim it is to improve customer experience, but it's pretty obvious that their goal is jacking up rates as high as they can get away with.
Internet access (like the airwaves) is clearly an area where the risks of not regulating enough outweigh the risks of over-regulation. I think that corporations in America have proven time and again that they are worthy of even LESS trust than the bozos in DC. Especially in the case of an open and free Internet. It's not "What could go wrong?" It's "What is already going wrong?" Just look at the whole Netflix/Comcast protection racket if you have any doubts.
I'm not entirely sure how this got modded insightful. The patent system is certainly not built upon owning an idea. They cover a particular implementation, a certain solution to a problem, not just an idea. If you invent a machine that makes unicorn farts, you can patent that machine. If I make a unicorn fart machine that operates in a different way, I am free to do so. Now the market has two different unicorn fart machine styles, and we are arguably better off as a society.
As an engineer with some hands on experience filing and working around patents, I can honestly say that a large part of the patent system still works as intended. I believe inventors should be protected, especially when it's a David and Goliath situation, and patents still offer some of that protection. I also believe that the patent system encourages inventors in at least two ways. It lets you know that there is at least one solution to your problem, and that somebody thought it was worthwhile enough to patent it. It also forces an inventor to be more creative and come up with different solutions to the problem than what has already been done. Sometimes when you have to think of a different solution, you end up with a better solution.
That being said, I think business method patents are stupid, and that software patents are evil. And if you're going to file a patent on something, you sure as shit better not try to sue me on "trade secret" grounds. (yes, that actually happens)