Re: hey Zero! Past is prologue, innit

In message <1150478722.061489.318280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Pies de Arcilla" <dearcilla@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thomas Armagost wrote:
>> Net Discrimination in Disguise
>
> I am willing to assume there is a real issue here. However, I have
> yet to see anyone who was able to explain what the net neutrality
> hysteria is about in a way that
> a) convinced me I understood it
> AND
> b) convinced me _they_ understood it.

In 1996, I had a tizzy fit over the Communications Decency Act, which
turned out to be much adoo about nothing. The law was rejected by
the U.S. Supreme Court.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act>

However, I'm not sure that the Bush Supreme Court will reject the
current legislation.

> Talking about better marketing and slicker advertising sounds
> sinister.

It's reality. Deal. From the viewpoint of a professional copy
writer, it's work. Ask RJM.

> How about explaining what the issue is for people who really want
> to understand?

<http://www.savetheinternet.com/=threat>

Tell me what you're having difficulty understanding.

> My ISP blocked Google for a year or two. And I was stuck with a
> contract. So I used an (encrypted) proxy.

Did that slow down your web searches and waste your time? Most people
aren't geeky enough to use an encrypted proxy.

The current legislation is brought to you by a session of Congress
with a 23% approval rating. It's a bad contract with America.

--
<http://www.well.com/user/silly/> doodle launch delayed by this crap
"Don't forget to register to vote" - Frank Zappa
.