Net Neutrality

Looking now at the issue of 'net neutrality' for the first time, I conclude that it's about everything wrong with "you," which in this sense may mean me ... or may mean anyone.

Catchphrases

The one place where words and phrases do not have to have any sort of correlation between the English and the result would be politics. Such may be the case with "net neutrality." The idea belongs to you, to me, to anyone; at least in the case of hearing the idea that we don't want the internet tampered with pretty much equals "net neutrality" in terms that can be understood. Yet if politics were somehow to twist the idea such that it ended up meaning something other than what it means to rational faculty, it doesn't have to be a redefinition at all but can be -- as politics goes -- that it simply isn't this 'other thing, over there,' whereof the July 12th alert cites effort to establish Internet service provision as a utility for purposes of regulation.

In that way, this light isn't bright enough to read by at this point.

Looking at the words of Ajit Pai in cursory glance, all I see him doing in the initial publicity phase were to solicit input from concerned parties by threatening to axe regulations that refer to 'net neutrality.'

If net neutrality were an anchor, then you can hold on to it while those concerned parties attempt to ascertain what sort of words to use to understand what regulations have been and then may become, but there's not likely to be any reason to throw away that anchor because Ajit Pai has been quoted as citing that the Internet works very well, if not for existing regulations holding back ...

[1] Ajit: "I think the American public and particularly the people who’d be affected by it, deserve to see what regulations are going to be adopted before they’re formally adopted."

[2] Ajit: "... [I]t’s not that big of a leap to say that the FCC should be as open and transparent as the Internet itself. Simply publish the rules, let the American people see it, and I think they can make up their own minds."

Ajit Pai also compares 'net neutrality' to the ultimatum of getting all-you-can-eat at an eatery -- or nothing at all. This seems to be where the notion of 'net neutrality' drives off the rock face and down into the cliffhanger gully, as if exploding with all lost hope.

Clearly, 'net neutrality' has held the Internet together in the past, so "we" should be 'for' it, ... if "we" were still out there.

But the FCC in this way looks to be regarding the issue strictly in terms of the business profiting by putting out an inferior product that will possess the capacity in theory to access the whole net when in fact has decided to censor anything they don't want to be perceived as selling -- Manga comes to mind as an example of an entire Something that could be selectively avoided. "While being set ablaze, Manga can be harmful and potentially traumatic."

Originally, I think the idea to have been about accessibility on the data end -- that anyone providing data on the internet should be equally part of one big, vast databank. So, however does the matter get around to being an economic ultimatum of "get the best selection or nothing at all" innuendo spilling over to define net-neutrality?

We certainly already have plenty of ways to access "the Internet" so absolutely without access to content. Some devices will only check email without any browsing, for example. A Roku, Chromecast, AppleTV, or similar piece of hardware will let the user access video-only. At the device end, then, your net neutrality would appear to be cut off fully; while in fact, net neutrality isn't affected in fact because you still have the internet service and may hook up with a device that supports the wide range of protocols worthy of an internet browser or network-application, including video game.

However -- the idea that you can sign up with an internet service and let the ISP determine what won't be available to you -- that defines as what net-neutrality is not.

In theory, the FCC should be seeing that you get what you pay for. So if you wish to "get on the Internet," then you couldn't do so with a non net-neutrality provider.

Footnotes:

[1], [2] Quotes taken from http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/25/fccs-ajit-pai-on-net-neutrality-a-soluti/1

End of Notification Requesters

Since the dawn of computer mice, anyone who has used virtually any type of commercial computer has had to use the requester. You know the drill -- a little notification box appears on-screen with a message and the requisite 'OKAY' button that you have to click in order to get it to disappear.

A smarter technology would feature the box timed for a number of default or user-selected seconds and then disappear of its own accord. But wait -- we are not defeating the purpose of the message -- it can be retrieved, extension-style, by hovering mouse pointer over a special piece of screen real estate in a task bar or application launcher positioned somewhere on the screen.

So there you have the basics of how to stop screen requesters from being annoying while additionally making a little use of the abandoned 'log file.'

...

Some wonderful things have been done with screen technology -- pretty fodder for a separate post. You can expand your screen real estate in numerous ways using real applications that will provide desktop clutter only on demand. You will be glad to know that this can be achieved both by software as well as by the hardware method of fusing more than one monitor to your desktop.

Technically you can point at any number of obsolete 'screen features' that should had been changed a long time ago. Windows 8 wasn't quite 'it,' although it has provided a brilliant complement to standing tablet technologies. I have slept through 9 and 10, so let's not go into that ;-) At the moment, my Kindle Fire has enough power for the majority of what I want to accomplish, and this mobile keyboard solves the constrictive typing problem.