Talk:Internet/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Internet. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Censorship part is not accurate at all

The article says..."Some governments, such as those of Iran, North Korea, Myanmar, the People's Republic of China, and Saudi Arabia, restrict what people in their countries can access on the Internet, especially political and religious content.". The United States and many other countries should also be in that country listing, since people can go to prison because of visiting certain web sites, namely child porn sites. If the article is going to speak of political and religious censorship, it should also speak of sexual censorship. Censorship is censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.57.90 (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Except that these countries actually block or inhibit access to the undesired content. In the US, you are simply arrested if caught, but the availability is still there. un4v41l48l3 (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What about Internet censorship in Cuba? Was it censored by the cuban government too? :S --LPedro Machado (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Dangers of the Internet

I think we should include a section on dangers of the Internet(hence the title), going over things like spam, identity theft, lack of privacy in some cases/exploitation/spying, cyber-bullying, Internet pornography, and the like. The Internet is a wonderful resource for information, but some neighborhoods are dark and you don't want to be caught there late at night [1]. Some sites are very dangerous, and according to my beliefs, spiritually destructive. I can't seem to edit the page, even though I made an acount.TheUberhacker (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi! You cannot edit the page because it is semi-protected due to vandalism concerns; this means that only "established" editors can edit it (Click on the small "lock" icon on the top-right of article). The information you suggest is covered already by the computer crime article; I agree that maybe it could be linked somewhere and a very brief paragraph about the problem could be made. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on how you believe pornography is dangerous at all? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.200.247 (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that something about "dangers of the internet" would improve the article. The article doesn't seem very balanced right now. I also agree that pornography is not a "danger". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.201.136 (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Cybersecurity Act of 2009

Cybersecurity Act of 2009 should have its own article. I cannot create it because I have been topic banned from political articles.

thomas.loc.gov has the text of the bill.

cnet.com reports that the bill, "... appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency...." and that "... If your company is deemed 'critical,' a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network."

Mother Jones has an editorial about the threat the bill poses to civil liberties.

The Atlantic and Fox News also have articles on it.

Grundle2600 (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft NPOV

The last line in the article suggests that the 'mistake' of using WWW and Internet interchangably is the fault of Microsoft (the word "provoked" is actually used...(?)) The entire paragraph is uncited, and completely biased against Microsoft. ALso, the heading makes no sense (Mistakes)

I believe it's mentioned earlier in the artcile that WWW is not the same as Internet, so I feel this entire section at the bottom should be removed. 162.136.193.1 (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's obviously biased against Microsoft and contains no information. The section should be removed. Now if only someone that can edit this page removes it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.99.125.41 (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hurrah!

Hurrah - there is an error that is frequently made, that the Internet is the same as the World Wide Web, which I see Wikipedia has very cleverly cleared up early in the article.I remember that in the early 00s, the BBC, specifically BBC Radio Four, received correspondence after making this error. Hurrah for Wikipedia - which is often more accurate than numerous other information resources! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Accountancy

"An accountant sitting at home can audit the books of a company based in another country, on a server situated in a third country that is remotely maintained by IT specialists in a fourth. These accounts could have been created by home-working bookkeepers, in other remote locations, based on information e-mailed to them from offices all over the world."

I believe that this statement should be removed. There are no references to any examples of this in the real world. How can someone in the USA audit the books of a company in China with all supporting documentation in Chinese, with absolutely no knowledge of the Chinese language, no knowledge of Chinese rules and regulations and local accounting and tax laws and standards? In addition the term "audit" is a general term that encompasses verification of assets, these would generally need to be seen in person by the auditor so to ensure that they actually exist and not "ficticious" assets. Perhaps a reference should be made to the (dubious) benefits of internet accounting software instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick1965 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say, "based in any other country in the world, chosen at random". Clearly the accountant would need to understand more than just the language the accounts were presented in, but also the local conventions, laws etc. and also be very familiar with business concerned - his client or employer - as well. It's just an example; we could change it to a scriptwriter, or a polititian, or a graphic designer. But it would be a shame to have to re-word the whole thing just because one accountant somewhere has had a bad day and is feeling grumpy. Would 'inspect' or 'examine' be better than 'audit'? Surely you're not saying that accountancy and bookkeeping can't be done over the internet, and that we need a citation before you will believe that they can? --Nigelj (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say, "based in any other country in the world, chosen at random". - It says "An accountant sitting at home can audit the books of a company based in another country, on a server situated in a third country that is remotely maintained by IT specialists in a fourth." So what is the difference? The quoter implies you can choose any country at random and is therefore misleading. And if "Clearly the accountant would need to understand more than just the language the accounts were presented in, but also the local conventions, laws etc. and also be very familiar with business concerned - his client or employer - as well." Further substantiates the weakness of the original statement I was complaining about.

"It's just an example; we could change it to a scriptwriter, or a polititian, or a graphic designer. But it would be a shame to have to re-word the whole thing just because one accountant somewhere has had a bad day and is feeling grumpy" - The use of technology relating to shipping graphic design or scripting writing is simply an movement of data across border (presumably outsourcing to cheaper countries) with far less legal ramifications.

Would 'inspect' or 'examine' be better than 'audit'? Surely you're not saying that accountancy and bookkeeping can't be done over the internet, and that we need a citation before you will believe that they can? Audit general refers to a statutory requirement, that covers inspection,. examination, and verification.

The fact that the original statement, I questioned is open to criticism show its misleading and therefore should be removed. Like I said it would be better to change it to refer to the (dubious) benefits of internet accounting (accounts would not need to be emailed all over the world as the internet accounting system eliminates the need for that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick1965 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

The introductory paragraph should surely be clear and concise, rather than jargon-filled and confusing. Something like the following perhaps:

The Internet is the name given to a worldwide community of computers that are inter-connected through the global telephone network. Some of the computers are simply the home computers of those who are searching for information or software services: the brochures of fashion shops, debating forums and so on. Other computers are those of organisations who provide that information and those services. Then there are the service providers: organisations whose computers do the job of bringing the two together. The ability to search through the vast amount of information and services available, and do it quickly, is made possible by the massive repositories of indexes, and indexes of indexes, (search engines) provided by the powerful computers of a number of organisations: the leading one being Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.176.115 (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The only statement that is correct as a definition in this proposal is that "Internet is a name". The Internet is NOT a collection of computers (defined here as an end-user device or server), as one cannot connect a single computer to the Internet, unless you have first connected a router and a network to the Internet and obtained a routing prefix for your network. Everything in this statement is marketing, not explanation. The single essential definition of the Internet lies in the TCP/IP internet layer, which describes the internetworking protocol. Without it, the Internet would not exist. Most of this statement may be attributed as a description of the World Wide Web. Surely one could write a introduction to the Internet geared towards applications, but that does not clarify just what the essence is of the Internet. The name Internet itself describes precisely what the definition is: it's an internet, a network of networks. This was only achieved (in a popular fashion) by TCP/IP (the Internet Protocol Suite). Other technologies, such as OSI and X.25 have attempted to create the same--if it could possibly be stated that anyone had the vision of today's Internet-- but have failed. Kbrose (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Kbrose. While the lead may have problems, these are minor and are largely caused by the challenges found in WP:LEDE of actually writing it. The current lede is far superior to the one proposed by 92.28.176.115. Attributing the Internet to the phone company would be a fundamental mistake. A newcomer like Google is given appropriate weight in the article body already. I suggest that 92.28.176.115 needs to read the entire article, and all the associated spin-offs such as History of the Internet, and then 92.28.176.115 may achieve enlightenment. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if anyone were to re-write the description of what the internet is, it should be someone who actually knows what it is. On the other hand, have you tried reading the current lede? It is fairly incomprehensible, and I think the reason is list-mania. There are three lists in the opening para, and we have allowed various toms, dicks and harrys to add whatever they like to these lists. We are allowed to be selective due to WP:WEIGHT, especially in the lede, so let's look at them:

Current
networks: private and public, academic, business, and government networks of local to global scope
linked by: copper wires, fiber-optic cables, wireless connections, and other technologies
carrying: a vast array of information resources and services, most notably the inter-linked hypertext documents of the World Wide Web (WWW) and the infrastructure to support electronic mail
popular services such as: online chat, file transfer and file sharing, gaming, commerce, social networking, publishing, video on demand, and teleconferencing and telecommunications. Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications allow person-to-person communication via voice and video.

Suggested
networks: commercial and publicly owned networks
linked by: copper wires, fiber-optic cables, and other technologies
carrying: a vast amount of information and services, most notably the hypertext resources of the World Wide Web
popular services such as: e-mail, file transfer, video, audio and voice communication.

In fact, trimming them down here was so easy that I have boldly gone ahead and sobered up that opening para. Please feel free to improve, but please do not re-expand, my selections. --Nigelj (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I only partially agree with Kbrose. The fundamental basis for his argument is sound, but there is actually nothing in the internet that requires you to use TCP to connect to it. Everything is handled at the IP layer. TCP/IP is not a protocol. You were correct to call it a suite, but incorrect to say that the internet relies on TCP. Sure, it may not be very useful without TCP, but it's certainly theoretically possible to use, say, only UDP for communication over the internet. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You are clearly confusing TCP and UDP with TCP/IP. TCP/IP is not a single protocol, it is the protocol suite in its entirety, a synonym for 'Internet Protocol Suite', and yes it's the IP component that's important here, which was stated precisely when I said The single essential definition of the Internet lies in the TCP/IP internet layer. The Internet Layer is essentially IP. Kbrose (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

History

Under History it should be noted that one of the first Windows-based web-browsers was Cello, which is a play on the name ViolinWWW which was one of the first Unix-based browsers. It should also be mentioned that one of the first free TCP/IP stacks for Windows was Trumpet Winsock, which really opened the Internet up to Windows users, before a Winsock stack was integrated into Windows itself. In addition, prior to the advent of the popularity of the World-Wide-Web, Gopher was one of the most popular protocals for navigating the Internet, based upon the menu-oriented tools provided by the University of Minnesota (whose sports teams are called the Gophers). Other communication protocols that lost out to the popularity of WWW, included: Telnet (still used for terminal communications), WAIS (a database server), and Hyper-G (a supposedly better alternative to WWW that never took-off). Database tools the archived information available on the early Internet and made it available for searching included: Archie (for searching FTP servers) and Hytelnet from the University of Saskatchewan (for searching Telnet servers largely based on libraries' electronic catalogs). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.75.91 (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Al Gore

How is it that this huge article about the internet doesn't even mention Al Gore? Sure, normally such ignorant cranks are dismissed, but he WAS the vice leader of the free world (after his old lady became music czar and before he saved the world), and at least millions of people actually believe that Al Gore invented the internet.

Because he didn't actually create the Internet. He is mentioned in History of the Internet, though, and there's more information in Al Gore and information technology. Gary King (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you'll find he was the vice president of the USA, not the free world. Millions of people believe Africa is a country, or that mount everest is the tallest mountain, but that doesn't make it true. Banak (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Quick Question, who Invented The Internet? when was the internet invented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.190.134 (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's in the History section of this article ("Use of the term "Internet" to describe a single global TCP/IP network originated..."). There isn't really a singular moment in which the Internet was created, though, as it's a network, not a single product. Gary King (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Notes Link Broken

Number three in the "Notes" section is a broken link. I was unable to find a replacement. Could someone fix this as I am currently working on a paper and can't do it my self. Thanks! un4v41l48l3 (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Note that in cases like this you can use the template {{Dead link}} to "flag" the ref for other editors to fix. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

I do not think that the terminology part of article is correct. Typically when someone is referring to "the internet" as a source of information, communication, and entertainment it is not capitalized. However when it is capitalized they are typically referring to Internet Explorer the web browser. That is the way that I have seen it and written it, does anyone else have any ideas/objections? Drew2794 (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree and have been arguing this point here, off and on, over the years. I never see the internet capitalised in the everyday press (The Guardian, New Scientist etc), only here. --Nigelj (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen the word Internet refer to Internet Explorer. I have often seen it refer to, well, the Internet. Rp (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

My suspicion, though it's probably original research, is that the very poor quality of the British news media (and the awfully careless capitalization or lack thereof in its work product) has something to do with the very poor training of British journalists. Most UK universities failed to recognize until the 1970s that journalism requires specialized training in its own schools independent of other colleges or faculties. Indeed, Oxford established a school of journalism only in 2006 and Cambridge still doesn't have one! In contrast, most American journalists at the top newspapers hold journalism degrees from top American universities, which have had schools of journalism for over a century. This is related to how American universities have also been global leaders in the development of law schools, business schools, medical schools, etc. The point is that professions that provide crucial services to society need their own independent institutional homes and cannot simply be operated as mere departments. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal opinion: The word Internet is a proper noun in English and is always capitalized. That media (online or print) sometimes lowercases proper nouns like "english" is only proof to me that they can't spell and needs to get a clue, maybe hire an editor or something someday. There is evidence backing my opinion on the issue in a little reference called Wikipedia (you may have heard of it). Consider this paragraph:

Owing to the essentially arbitrary nature of orthographic classification and the existence of variant authorities and adopted house styles, questionable capitalization of words is not uncommon, even in respected newspapers and magazines. Most publishers, however, properly require consistency, at least within the same document, in applying their specified standard.

But if anybody refers to "Internet Explorer", an unambiguous software program, as "the Internet", then they need to be corrected, or not, as is polite in the given case. There is precisely zero actual ambiguity here; only ambiguity in the perception of others. This perceived, not actual, ambiguity is one reason why this and the "Internet Explorer" articles are here: To clear up the misconceptions of what the Internet, versus any trademarked program that uses the term, is. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity is often in the eye of the beholder. For instance, there are many different version of Internet Explorer, and there used to be versions for various platforms. On your first remark: do you listen to the Radio, or the radio? Rp (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Computer networks differ from other communications technologies in that they have traditionally been referred to as proper nouns, not common nouns, particularly in California English (and we must keep in mind that California is where the Internet was born). Hence, the Internet, Usenet, Fidonet, and Ethernet. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Equating 'Internet' with 'Internet Explorer' is obviously absurd and the often perpetrated analogy to the radio (and others) is bogus, as it is the same as comparing the Internet to 'copper wires'. A better analogy is that 'Internet' is to 'networking', what 'XM Satellite Radio' is to 'radio' (if one overlooks the open standards difference) or what 'Signaling System 7' (SS7) and ISDN are to the 'telephone' network. Each define a set of standards for communications, and these standards are expressed and understood by their names, proper names. In addition, the 'Internet' is to 'internet', what the 'Moon' is to 'moons' of many planets. Kbrose (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Lolkguys, let me clear this all up for you. It's a simple rule of English. It's one of those words that needs to be capitalized. If you didn't, it'd be like not capitalizing your name when you write it down. It's that simple. You're all arguing over a basic rule of our language. If you really need more details, the reason you capitalize Internet Explorer and the Internet is sort of the same now that I think about it a little. Every product specific brand name is capitalized, unless they're one of those ones that try to be 'hip' by having a purposely lowercase letter. Just like you capitalize your name, you capitalize the name of products and the companies who made them. In general, you capitalize any unique object in which there can only be one of if you're referring to it in a unique way. "That human over there" doesn't specify the person in a unique way, even though it doesn't refer to a specific one, but saying, "Sally over there" refers to a specific person in which there can only be one of. She exists right there and no where else. The Internet is a unique object, so you capitalize it. That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.230.26 (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I ride the subway to work, not the Subway. You can't equate the internet to a brand name. On the other hand, I take the R train, not the r train because "R" is the name of the route. The subway is the network of all these routes so I think it's a pretty good analog to the internet. Unmasked (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This argument doesn't follow sorry. There is not just one subway, they exist throughout the world, but how many internets are there? That's right, just the one. Having said that, people talk about 'television' and 'radio' in a generic way without capitalising it. If it is indeed a sort of brand name or registered trade name or whatever, then of course it has to be capitalised as explained above. I have a sneaking feeling however that the use of lower case will become most prevalent in the end. There is a tremendous antipathy towards capitalisation at the moment where you would expect to see it or where it has traditionally (and not incorrectly) been employed - I'm thinking particularly about geographical expressions (north Africa, south Wales, the west). I'm sure there are people out there who would love to scrap capitals altogether, even in personal names. Lower case use in texting (mobile phones/cell phones) is so widespread that maybe people are forgetting how to write and spell properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomani9 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I believe that "an internet" is a series of connected networks, "the Internet" is the one I'm using now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banak (talk • contribs) 00:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

ARPA/DARPA

Shouldn't ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) be DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). Or at least have a link to DARPA since they are the same thing and ARPA does not have a page. It was ARPA in 1958 but renamed in 1972. I think it should be mentioned that they are the same to avoid confusion. Drew2794 (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Slight typo?

Just checking, is the part "content management or wiki software" of : "Advertising on popular web pages can be lucrative, and e-commerce or the sale of products and services directly via the Web continues to grow. In the early days, web pages were usually created as sets of complete and isolated HTML text files stored on a web server. More recently, websites are more often created using content management or wiki software with, initially, very little content. Contributors to these systems, who may be paid staff, members of a club or other organization or members of the public, fill underlying databases with content using editing pages designed for that purpose, while casual visitors view and read this content in its final HTML form. There may or may not be editorial, approval and security systems built into the process of taking newly entered content and making it available to the target visitors."; correct? I think the "or wiki" part is a lost black sheep in the sentence.

(I'm sorry for writing in the wrong format, as I am still new to Wikipedia article editing.) WikiJaZon (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems OK to me. We are creating, developing and maintaining web pages here using Wikimedia software. That is the stuff that provides us with edit pages, and incorporates what we type into the existing text. What we contribute is all formatted using HTML tags in the final version, though we type it using wiki syntax, like equals signs for headings, double apostrophes for emphasis etc. So contributors use wiki software to contribute, just like people did with content management systems in the past, or by typing the HTML directly, before that. All those methods are still valid. Where's the problem? --Nigelj (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Another person here. Well, wiki is CMS, so sentence "CMS or wiki", to me is the same as "CMS or specialized CMS". Kinda dumb, don't you think?

Jubbal Dhar

Its a place in Himachal Pradesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.2.236.197 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

But what does this have to do with the Internet? DavidChipman (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Invention

sorry but the internet was not invented by the US but by Sir Tim Berners Lee. Zhonghuo (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry... but Tim Berners Lee invented the World wide web, a separate and completely different invention from what the Internet is. The W.W.W. is an application, like e-mail, that uses the interconnected network of networks known as the internet. In fact, the Internet was conceptualized in the 1950's with the first, original internet, ARPANET, being operational in 1969. Many confuse the two inventions. But rest assured, the W.W.W. and the internet are not interchangeable nor are they the same thing.

For the invention that Tim Berners Lee accomplished in the year 1990, you should visit the article World wide web. Kildruf (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The USA invented the ARPANET. However, as the internet is a global network of interconnected nodes, and the nature of the changes in it, I would say the USA did not invent the internet though were involved in the proccess. If the USA invented the internet, then an exploding star invented life. 94.195.20.56 (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, nearly every major contributor to the Internet's development prior to 1989 was either American, or did their important work in the U.S. I can count the prominent non-Americans in that group on one hand. All the core Internet technologies prior to the Web---TCP/IP, DNS, email, telnet, ftp, etc. were invented by Americans. Furthermore, hypertext was invented by two Americans, Douglas Engelbart and Ted Nelson; all Berners-Lee did was come up with a way to make hypertext work on the Internet. Please educate yourself before making any other incredibly ignorant statements. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

1. The internet is a global connected group of networks. 2. It more evoloved with major US help than was invented by the US. I would argue that the US invented many parts of it and helped it work but did not invent it.Banak (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you try reading the original Requests for Comment for TCP/IP before making wildly ignorant statements like that? Then trace the nationality of the writers of those RFCs. BIG hint---they're ALL American. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If I'm so wildy ignorant, why arn't you attually responding to my point? Anyway, as I was saying, what with it being a global phenomenon, although with almost enitirly US effort to start it, I would argue it wasn't really invented by the US and more than love was invented at any one moment. Can we please stop making rash and inaccurate responces claiming intulectual superiority whenever someone challenges one aspect the US' beliefs? I'm claiming, that what made the internet the internet and not the ARPANET is the involvement of other contries (and yes, I know, one of the nodes in the ARPANET was in London). The Internet became an internet with involvement of other contries. But more importantly, can someone point out the Barrack Obama that he has no rights over anyone's computer networks outside of the US, and therefore cannot claim to own the internet, due to its abstract nature. 94.195.20.56 (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You're still not getting it. If you want to focus on the structural (i.e. internetworking) instead of technical aspects of it (and it's indisputable that the vast majority of technical innovations that transformed ARPANET into the Internet were actually invented or designed by Americans), what made the Internet the Internet was the MILNET split followed by the transfer to NSFNET and eventual privatization, as guided by Al Gore on the political side (that's why there's that controversy over whether he's the father of the Internet). The international nodes were always peripheral until the early 1990s when the Internet began to take off. They were mere communication points, not innovation points; in other words, they were following the trends established at the U.S. nodes, not jointly contributing. (CERN, of course, was a major exception, but that was well after TCP/IP had been developed and widely deployed.) For example, practically all Internet-connected devices today use some descendant of the Berkeley sockets API to connect the physical network interface (e.g., Ethernet) to software applications. Furthermore, nearly all of the networks being internetworked by the Internet well into the mid-1990s were American networks, not European or Asian networks. And nearly all of the foreign nodes were being connected to each other through the NSFNET backbone in the United States.

All the major European telecoms and computer programmers were too focused on building crappy X.25 networks and designing parts of Open Systems Interconnect to recognize that TCP/IP had more long-term potential despite its critical technical deficiencies at the time. Try reading some European technical journals from the 1970s and 1980s (I have actually taken the time to do that, at engineering libraries at Davis, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and San Luis Obispo) to see how those clowns thought OSI was the hottest thing since sliced bread. They thought TCP/IP was a silly American curiosity across the ocean that would be a mere flash in the pan, so they wanted to focus on building their preposterously expensive, annoying, and user-unfriendly X.25 and videotex networks instead. Funny how OSI turned out to be the ultimate vaporware---even some U.S. government bureaucrats were obsessed with it in the 1980s, but fortunately not the key Internet developers. Bernard Aboba wrote a famous critique of ISO and its obsession with OSI back in the 1990s, and pointed out how just to get a copy of the OSI standards one had to call up Geneva and pay hundreds of dollars to be shipped hard copy books when anyone with an Internet connection could download the RFCs. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Coolcaesar, he is an unregistered user of Wikipedia with the intent to argue for the sake of getting a rouse out of you. m:What is trolling? I think that most intelligent people know, as consensus shows on external sites like Encarta and Britaanica, that the U.S. invented the internet. Just ignore him.Yoganate79 (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So noted. Thanks for pointing that out. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happened to assuming good faith? And why do so many Americans insult people with these hateful comments claiming others are being hateful? I'm trying not to flame you guys but really, you've got to stop insulting people who disagree just because they disagree. Will get back to this some other time, but this is really annoying. The Internet, in of itself is not an invention, but an internet is. But really, as an internet is a network of networks, this would be impossible to name "the first" due to various problems with when a network becomes a computer and when a network becomes a network of networks. Can we allow debate rather than using only pro-USA statements. Banak (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I agree with Banak "An alternative view, held by at least some Wikipedians, is that trolling is an accusation levelled at anyone with whom the accuser disagrees. People who feel their position is threatened by another will try to undermine that persons point of view by ad hominem attacks like 'you are a troll'." I consider your behavour to be considered to be a troll from this argument. You are restricting debate by accusing people who disagree to be trolls or calling them ignorant. In addition, a consensus does not prove a point and put it beyond debate, and you should be willing to allow them to be challenged. At one point it was a concenous that there were no such things as atoms, later that ether existed (outside of the MARDEK games series) and even the steady state theory was believed. People believed you could make gold without changing elements, that everything was fire, earth, water and air mixed together and that objects went straight along before falling straight rather than falling. Want me to go on? 94.195.20.56 (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What happened to Interweb??!!

The hilarious interweb article is now gone and links directly to the Internet article!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interweb now links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

Please revert it back to http://web.archive.org/web/20061004215023/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interweb

That is much more hilarious!

Ssstonebraker (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Stonebraker

More eyes, please?

Could a few other experienced editors have a look at Global Internet usage and its recent Talk? I am a bit worried by the low quality of this article, and would appreciate other input. --Nigelj (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

P.s please do not trust this it is false please believe me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.81.29 (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Why should peoepl trust the comment of someon no signed in? Just sayin'....

DavidChipman (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Look this!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUirFOSxmWU&feature=player_embedded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.183.62.66 (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about an Argentinian bra manufacturer using Net (textile) in their products and calling it 'internet' in 1956. Not really relevant. --Nigelj (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone forgot...

Guys, I just wanted to remind everyone of this important fact.

We're on the internet RIGHT NOW.

That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.199.54 (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sipp, ST. Hilton.(1921-1970)- Sergeant Hilton Sipp was born in a small rual town of Mississippi, called "Expose". His father and mother Walker Sipp and Flether Jefferson later moved to the country town of Hathorn, Mississippi. Hilton grew up on a farm and later was drafted into the U.S. Armed Forces in 1942. He was inducted into the Army and made his way to Sergeant of Amminition Divison. Later he because a Doctor of Mechanics and earned his metals for World War II. In 1945 he seperated from the U.S. Armed Forces in 1945 Champ Shelby of Mississippi. Hilton built a house and raised his family in Hathorn, MS and later moved to Mobile, Ala.(Information provided by Dr. Hilda Mae Sipp BA,M.ED., M.ED.#2, Ed.S., and PH.D., Daughter of Hilton Sipp, 2010). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.164.24 (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Johnnysilas, 3 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please add these [edits] to the existing text within the 6th paragraph of the Social impact section:

Many people use the Internet to access and download [the data needed to reproduce] music, movies and other works for their enjoyment and relaxation. [Technically, people don't download music or movies from the Internet, they only download data. This data then needs to be reprocessed into a computer file and then reproduced into a digital media file before it can actually be referred to as "music, movies and other works". Most often these 3 separate steps are generically referred to as "downloading", when in fact the term "downloading" only refers to the copying of data (1's and 0's) from the Internet.]

I have a 15 page paper that I have written on this subject. If you would like to verify what I am stating I can e-mail you a copy of the document if you provide me with the proper contact information...johnnysilas@gmail.com

Johnnysilas (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done Please provide some reliable sources which use the word "download" in this bizarre fashion. Algebraist 16:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

lavin se la come —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.82.67.18 (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.90.167.235, 13 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

"User's" should be "Users" in the next to last line.

75.90.167.235 (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Favonian (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

'Mental effects' section should be in www article

This 'Mental effects' section seems to be about hypertext, web surfing, search engines etc. These are all technologies of the World Wide Web, which is only one part of the Internet. Therefore, unless there is much more research that is going to be added about how e-mail, file-sharing, remote desktops and the other internet technologies affect brains, it should be moved from here to being a section of the World Wide Web article. The section above it, 'Social impact' probably should go over to there too, looking at it. --Nigelj (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The section is an accurate summary of the main article How internet use affects the human brain. WWW vs. internet is being actively discussed at Talk:How internet use affects the human brain. --Kvng (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Spelling error in 'Mental effects'

There is a spelling error in the Mental effects section. Second paragraph, it says "He pints out that people have control over what they do", when it should be "He points..." --90.218.231.57 (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Done --Kvng (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's now "ponts"... --90.218.231.57 (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you anon. Fixed now. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

*Feels epic* --90.218.231.57 (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Your effort was epic indeed. Thanks for sticking with it to the end :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)