| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
08 May 2005 04:21:07 AM |
| Object: |
OT: Labour's love lost on the net |
Labour's love lost on the net
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1478850,00.html
John Naughton
Sunday May 8, 2005
The Observer
The internet as we know it today is 22 years old. It was a spin-off
from an earlier network, the Arpanet, which was built between 1969 and
1972. Design work began in 1973 on what was initially known as the
'internetworking' project and reached fruition when the internet
officially went live in January 1983. Everything that has happened
since has been determined by the philosophy of, and decisions made by,
the engineers who created it.
The central design problem they faced was simple and universal: how do
you design for an unknowable future? They were set the task of creating
a communications system that could be used for applications that nobody
had yet conceived, and they were no more endowed with prophetic skills
than the next man.
John Naughton
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/a1d337e62358e8d1
Internet
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/ec817fa30abb95af
A Blueprint for the Future
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/59c28cd6dfe6f60f
.
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Labour's love lost on the net |
08 May 2005 12:24:42 PM |
|
|
On 8 May 2005 02:21:07 -0700,
maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
The central design problem they faced was simple and universal: how do
you design for an unknowable future? They were set the task of creating
a communications system that could be used for applications that nobody
had yet conceived, and they were no more endowed with prophetic skills
than the next man.
It's a pity that they chose to use a 32 bit addressing scheme.
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Arensburger" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Labour's love lost on the net |
11 May 2005 04:21:31 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
It's a pity that they chose to use a 32 bit addressing scheme.
I'm sure that 2/3 of an IP address per person on the planet,
at a time when mainframes roamed the earth seemed like plenty of elbow
room.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Back off, man! I'm a programmer!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Labour's love lost on the net |
08 May 2005 06:24:32 PM |
|
|
On 8 May 2005 17:24:42 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com>:
On 8 May 2005 02:21:07 -0700,
maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
The central design problem they faced was simple and universal: how do
you design for an unknowable future? They were set the task of creating
a communications system that could be used for applications that nobody
had yet conceived, and they were no more endowed with prophetic skills
than the next man.
It's a pity that they chose to use a 32 bit addressing scheme.
Yeah, 16 bits, or even 8, which was common (if that term can
apply to a decidedly *un*common technology) in the '60s,
would have been so much better. ;-)
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
