Talk:Internet/Archive 1

message: Despite the clever lead...
::In the general sense, an internet (with a lowercase "i") is a computer network that connects several other networks. The art of connecting networks in this way is called internetworking. See also the related terms intranet and extranet. As a proper noun, the Internet is the publicly available world-wide, interconnected system of computers (plus the information and services they provide and their users) that uses the TCP/IP suite of protocols. Thus, the largest internet in the world is called simply "the" Internet.
...It appears to me, in agreement with a recent (not occuring-to-me-righ-now-as-to-where) article I read that "Internet" be a lower-case "i."
While it is true that "Internet" is what most people are using now, the capital "i" is irrelevant and just a bit hackneyed and obtuse, since the Internet is not part of an acronym, it is not a product, a band, nor does it descend from any of the above. It seems that some of the confusion comes the "the" commonly placed in front, as if it were a proper place, like Montana, "The Internet."
For uses in an encyclopedia that should be in-tune with the vernacular, perhaps the cap "I" makes sense, but in the whole-picture it doesn't make any at all.
The question being: does using "Internet" make any sense as opposed to "internet," on Wikipedia?
:: I think we should leave it as is.  If Merriam-Webster leaves it as Internet, lets leave it as Internet.
::: Well, perhaps general use is changing now, but the definitions above (which I think I was responsible for) are the way the people who created the Internet always did it - i.e. we used "internet" for the general concept, and "the Internet" as the name of the large system. This usage dates back to the late 1970's, so it has a lot of history. Noel 15:30, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wired News has now decapitalized 'web', 'net' and 'internet'. ··gracefool |☺ 04:46, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there are many internets on this planet. The Internet is the largest of them. Metamatic 14:40, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Being Wikipedia and all, of course you are entitled to your opinion.  However, note that one of the purposes of an encyclopedia is to make terms understandable to the majority (and hopefully all) of the readers.  You are free to use the form as you like.  But since most of the English-speaking world uses the terminology counter to your declaration of usage, you'll just find that another Wikipedian will edit it behind you.  You'll need something more persuasive than "it's nuts" and a declaration of your rules (which you acknowledge others don't follow) to change people's opinions.  Your statement on God and god is flawed.  It doesn't take into account the fact that people recognize that multiple belief systems exist.  Words exist within contexts.  "God" and "god" don't mean the same thing, because they cover different contexts.  Same thing with Internet and internet.  --Amillar 18:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet, internet, internetworking, ...

message: Who did this with no comments?
:*Revision 41: View Diff . . December 8, 2001 9:00 am by 12.235.7.xxx [Removing pointless comment, fixing /Talk] 
I added "Not to be confused with World Wide Web"
duh!?
Does anyone know the difference here?
I do.
Web...capitalize it please.  When referring to a website, leave off the capital letter...but, when referring to it as an entity in and of itself, the capital W is a necessity.
===Diagram, please, anyone?===
Given that one of the areas of confusion that this article ought to be tackling, in my opinion, is the difference between the Web and the 'Net, it really troubles me that we have it illustrated by a diagram representing a part of the WWW.  Does anyone have a suitable diagram showing some of the transatlantic and trans-continental trunk lines that actually carry Internet data traffic around some part of the Globe?  Is there anyone here with the knowledge to draw a simplified view? --Nigelj 17:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A simplified view? Just take any GIF map o' the world from the wikipedia archives (sure we have one somewhere) and draw squiggles on it. Connect most of the major developed societies to your squiggles and you'll probably be closer than attempting to draw a proper diagram would get. --Cynical 22:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I sent a mail to Hal Burch from the Internet Mapping Project asking for a permission to use one of their images. 33px Helix84 12:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Bill Cheswick, lumeta.com, copyright holder: "Actually, good idea.  I'll check it out and put it in myself." 33px 213.81.165.16 14:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant!  Well done Helix, and thanks in advance, Bill. --Nigelj 14:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: World Wide Web

message: Given that one of the areas of confusion that this article ought to be tackling, in my opinion, is the difference between the Web and the 'Net, it really troubles me that we have it illustrated by a diagram representing a part of the WWW.  Does anyone have a suitable diagram showing some of the transatlantic and trans-continental trunk lines that actually carry Internet data traffic around some part of the Globe?  Is there anyone here with the knowledge to draw a simplified view? --Nigelj 17:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A simplified view? Just take any GIF map o' the world from the wikipedia archives (sure we have one somewhere) and draw squiggles on it. Connect most of the major developed societies to your squiggles and you'll probably be closer than attempting to draw a proper diagram would get. --Cynical 22:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I sent a mail to Hal Burch from the Internet Mapping Project asking for a permission to use one of their images. 33px Helix84 12:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Bill Cheswick, lumeta.com, copyright holder: "Actually, good idea.  I'll check it out and put it in myself." 33px 213.81.165.16 14:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant!  Well done Helix, and thanks in advance, Bill. --Nigelj 14:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagram, please, anyone?

message: Anyone considered posting anything about Flash Animations? They are a major part of internet culture... at least now a days.
See Flash.  This is a relatively minor sub-set technology of the WWW, which itself is a sub-set of the Internet...  Just goes to show, we need to tackle this confusion over what's what and what's part of what in this area.  How do you do those right-hand side info-boxes that show related articles and how they relate to this and each other??? --Nigelj 17:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Flash

message: The claim about the ARPANet having been built as a survivable control system is common, and flat wrong. Baran's original work on packet switching was motivated by that, but not the ARPAnet. See DARPA's own history book, listed on
the ARPANET page. Noel 15:30, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: NOT intended or designed to be a military communications channel, and was never designed to survive a nuclear war. It was built so that scientists working on DoD-funded projects didn't have to travel to use the biggest computers. 
is also incorrect. Part of the problem is that people are conflating the ARPANet and the Internet, which were two entirely separate projects, with different goals, started and staffed by different people entirely. E.g. The statement about "built so that scientists .. didn't have to travel" is true of the ARPANet, but not of the Internet.
As to whether the Internet was intended to be used as "a military communications channel", and whether it was designed to be used as a strategic (i.e. nuclear weapons) C^2 (command/control) channel, well, to start with, those are separate questions, with separate answers.
As to the first, the Internet technology came into existence (as the "History of the Internet" article discusses) to allow the military to connect a bunch of test-bed tactical packet data networks, including a packet radio network which was demoed at Ft. Bragg in the late 70's / early 80's. So it definitely was intended in part for use as a military communications channel. So that email was wrong there. There was a significant military aspect to the project - I remember numerous briefings which touched on things like C3^I (command, control, communication and intelligence) and other military-specific application information. The people working on the Internet project then (including me) knew full well it would see operational military use (i.e. not just non-combat roles like logistics) - but understood that it was "dual-use" technology that we could use in the civilian environment (academic, business, etc) as well.
The answer to the second is murkier, without (AKAIK) a clear yes/no answer, and I suspect also in part classified. I do know that there were proposals to study the construction of a "survivable" strategic C^2 system using Internet technology for the communications substrate (it also used replicated distributed databases, etc) - but that was just a proposal to study an idea. Whether the military intended, at that point in time, to do anything in the long run with Internet technology on the strategic C^2 side I just don't know - and I'm not sure there is a definite answer. My guess would be that it would be the kind of thing where once it was available, they'd look at it and see if it made sense for them, in their context. The people working on Internet technology certainly had that potential application in the back of their mind - we occasionally made jokes about it. I personally gave it some thought before working on it - and decided it was OK because the whole point of a survivable strategic C^2 system is to be survivable - i.e. inherently a retaliatory system.
I suppose I ought to dig up documentation for all of this, and add a section to the appropriate article, but that will have to wait for another day.
Noel 22:40, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: Why wait for documentation? If you're the primary source, why not just pop it on in there?!! Tsavage 03:56, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet and Nuclear Warfare survivability

message: Why were the last set of external links added under a References section? Bevo 03:42, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: They are references which were used to create the article. Anthony DiPierro 03:45, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think they should still go below the links to other wikipedia articles, like other external links. --Shallot 09:24, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Why --References-- ?

message: Anyone know anything about The Grid - the future replacement for the present Web/Internet, currently being developed?
I've scoured the Internet (via Google) but to no avail - perhaps it's all so hush-hush that there's nothing been released about it yet....
I am assured that this is in development at CERN and is eventually intended to be a super-Internet for the next generation. Any further info would be appreciated - this should surely be mentioned in one of these articles.
Agendum 09:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any evidence at all that such a thing exists? - Centrx 05:12, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Grid