A Brief History of the Internet by Maxwell Fuller (good non fiction books to read TXT) đź“•
3. Lust: I have to have it.
4. Anger: I will hurt you to insure that I have it, andand to insure that you do not have one.
5. Envy: I hate that you have one.
6. Greed: There is no end to how much I want, or to howlittle I want you to have in comparison.
7. Sloth: I am opposed to you moving up the ladder: itmeans that I will have to move up the ladder, to keepmy position of lordship over you. If I have twice asmuch as you do, and you gain a rung, that means I canonly regain my previous lordship by moving up two; itis far easier to knock you back a rung, or to preventyou from climbing at all.
Destruction is easier than construction.
This becomes even more obvious for the person who hasa goal of being 10 or 100 times further up the ladderof success. . .given the old, and hopefully obsolete,or soon to be obsolete, definitions of
Read free book «A Brief History of the Internet by Maxwell Fuller (good non fiction books to read TXT) 📕» - read online or download for free at americanlibrarybooks.com
- Author: Maxwell Fuller
- Performer: -
Read book online «A Brief History of the Internet by Maxwell Fuller (good non fiction books to read TXT) 📕». Author - Maxwell Fuller
On the other hand, just as the Project Gutenberg’s efficiency would drop dramatically if we insisted our first edition of a book were over 99.5% accurate, so too, should efficiency drop dramatically if we were ever to involve ourselves in any type of discussion resembling “How many angels can dance on a pin-head.” The fact is, that our editions are NOT targeted to an audience specifically interested in whether Shakespeare would have said:
“To be or not to be” “To be, or not to be” “To be; or not to be” “To be: or not to be” “To be—or not to be”
This kind of conversation is and should be limited to the few dozen to few hundred scholars who are properly interested. A book designed for access by hundreds of millions cannot spend that amount of time on an issue that is of minimal relevance, at least minimal to 99.9% of the potential readers. However, we DO intend to distribute a wide variety of Shakespeare, and the contributions of such scholars would be much appreciated, were it ever given, just as we have released several editions of the Bible, Paradise Lost and even Aesop’s Fables.
In the end, when we have 30 different editions of Shakespeare on line simulateously, this will probably not even be worthy, as it hardly is today, of a footnote…I only answer out of respect for the process of creating these editions as soon as possible, to improve the literacy and education of the masses as soon as possible.
For those who would prefer to see that literacy and education continue to wallow in the mire, I can only say that a silence on your part creates its just reward. Your expertise dies an awful death when it is smothered by hiding your light under a bushel, as someone whom is celebrated today once said:
Matthew 5:15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
Mark 4:21 And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?
Luke 8:16 No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light.
Luke 11:33 No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light.
Gopher, WWW, Mosaic, Netscape
This chapter discusses why URLs aren’t U, Why Universal Resource Locators Are Not Universal
When I first tried the experimental Gopher sites, I asked the inventors of Gopher if their system could be oriented to also support FTP, should a person be more inclined for going after something one already had researched: rather than the “browsing” that was being done so often on those Gopher servers.
The answer was technically “yes,” but realistically “no,” in that while Gophers COULD be configured such that every file would be accessible by BOTH Gopher and FTP, the real intent of Gopher was to bypass FTP and eventually replace it as the primary method of surfing the Internet.
I tried to explain to them that “surfing” the Internet is much more time consuming as well as wasteful of bandwidth [this at a time when all bandwidth was still free, and we were only trying to make things run faster, as opposed to actually saving money.
Those Who Would Be King, Part I
Those Who Would Be King, Part II
Those Who Would Be King, Part III
The Netiquetters
“We Are Surrounded By An Insurmountable Opportunity.”
“It Is Like Drinking From A Firehose.”
“Be Sure To Have YOUR Messages `Netiquette Approved.’”
These sentiments reflect a portion of the Internet who have terrified thoughts and feelings about a wonderful set of opportunties made available by the Internet and other networks.
They are afraid of too much opportunity and would like to make sure no one else takes advantage of such great opportunities because it will make themselves look and feel very small by comparison.
They want to make sure YOU don’t cross the boundaries, simply because THEY ARE AFRAID to cross them.
Their thinking is sociological rather than logical, as follows:
1: They are obviously afraid of so much opportunity.
2: They want to reduce the pressure of so much highly available opportunity.
3. This is because they are afraid someone else would make good use of this opportunity and leave them a footnote in their own fields as opportunity shifts into hyper-drive and nothing will ever be quite as sedate, staid, prim, proper, stiff and reserved as it was previous in a paper dominated room, full of stuffed shirts and Robert’s Rules Of Order: which THEY used to keep YOU from upsetting Apple and IBM carts with more horsepower than THEY were willing, and able, to use.
History is full of examples of those in position of an older variety of power using their power to deny, defy and otherwise stultify anything new, and therefore out of their own immediate forms of control.
It is also full of examples of the “Powers-That-Be” so vaingloriously squashing any potential rival powers in much the same manner as a queen bee stings other queen bees to death before they are even born.
In such a manner are the ideas of the new refused in a world dominated by the old.
Of course what comes to mind is Napoleon III’s “Salon-des-Refuses” in which works of the [now!] greatest and most famous painters in the world finally had a day to have their works shown to the public after years of an autocratic denial by the Academic Francaise’s official Salon, originally begun in the Louvre, and where great examples of these works hang today, in defiance of the greatest “powers-that-be” that ever were, who failed— as all such attempts should fail.
“The Academie Francaise (French Academy) is the most renouned and oldest of the five learned socities that make up the Insititue de France, established by Cardinal Richelieu.
[Grolier’s 1994 Electronic Encyclopedia]
The encyclopedia goes on to state that “`unification, and purification’” were among the prime “`development’” goals.
The most famous recounting of Cardinal Richelieu’s attempts to take over France and to remold it in a reflection of his own conservative power structure are detailed in Alexandre Dumas’ Three Musketeers. Please…take time to “Read More About It.”
The encyclopedia article continues on to describe the intense conservatism these Institutes maintain even a few centuries later even though at least this “oldest and most powerful” of them, “the Salon gradually lost its position as the sole official exibition of French painting,” sculpture, etc., which also stood against the Eiffel Tower, as well as everything else new.
JUST SAY NO
When they come to YOUR electronic door, enlisting YOUR support for their views of how to run the Internet you can “just say no” and feel no obligation to make THEIR rules of order be YOUR rules of order:
1. Don’t bother with their requests for “conservation of bandwidth” because their idea of bandwidth is a sociological “inversion, diversion and perversion” of the term “bandwidth.”
They would have you believe that a dozen short message files sent through THEIR listservers are a “bandwidth-preserver” rather than one message containing what you had to say all at once.
A. This is just so much sociological barnyard matter. They just want to keep you from having your say in an uninterrupted manner…it is ONLY this manner in which anyone CAN BE INTERRUPTED on the Internet and it requires YOU TO INTERRUPT YOURSELF, because THEY CAN’T DO INTERRUPT YOU THEMSELVES: THEY HAVE TO TALK YOU INTO THE CUTTING YOUR OWN THROAT.
B. The logical rather than sociological truth is that short messages are 50% made up of header materials that are not part of the message you are sending— but rather header and packet identifiers for these messages. Thus your series of a dozen messages of the short variety is going to be 50% wasteful of a bandwidth it uses, in comparison to sending the 12 thoughts you might want to express as one, single, uninterrupted message.
*** Insert header here Here is an example of the kind of header attached to a normal Internet message. Some VERY wasteful emailers, Netiquetters included, have much longer headers due to their refusal to take the time to delete the addresses when they send the same message to hundreds of people. I have received messages in which the header literally contained hundreds of extra lines beyond this.
**Header Starts Below** [Margins were shortened. This header contains 1054 characters, which would take 3 512 byte packets, each packet of which has to have its own header normal users never see. A mailer can be set not to show most of the header, but it is all there, and taking up bandwidth.]
Received: from UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu (ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu [128.205.2.1]) by mtshasta.snowcrest.net (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id FAA24025; Thu, 2 Feb 1995
05:53:11 -0800
Message-Id: <199502021353.FAA24025@ mtshasta.snowcrest.net> Received: from UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU by UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0354; Thu, 02 Feb 95 08:43:10 EST Received: from UICBIT.UIC.EDU (NJE origin VMMAIL@PPLCATS) by UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3521; Wed, 1 Feb 1995 19:45:18 -0500 Received: from UICBIT.BITNET (NJE origin LISTSERV@UICBIT) by UICBIT.UIC.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5650; Wed, 1 Feb 1995 18:44:26 -0600 Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 18:22:10 CST Reply-To: Project Gutenberg Email List <GUTNBERG%[email protected]> Sender: Project Gutenberg Email List <GUTNBERG%[email protected]> From: “Michael S. Hart” <[email protected]> Subject: March Gutenberg Etexts To: Multiple recipients of list GUTNBERG <GUTNBERG%[email protected]>
**Header Ends Here**
Another Demonstration of SocioLogical Argumentation
I have a signature block that contains the usual in a name, position, and disclaimer along with information of how long you should wait for a reply to a message, who to contact for further information and it has one line about how long I have been on the Internet.
It takes up about this much space:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
which is about 318 characters and receives complaints from those who accept signature blocks that look like:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x Your Message Here x x x x x x x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
which takes over 718 characters because all the blank spaces are real spaces.
I have pointed out this discrepancy in logic, but the people readily reply the space they are talking about is in the human mind, and not in the computers.
To which I reply “Barnyard Material!”
THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT OUT TO SAVE “BUZZWORD BANDWIDTH”… THEY ARE OUT TO CONTROL YOU…DON’T LET THEM.
“Netiquette” is something THEY have invented TO CONTROL YOU!
All you have to do is remind them that each individual has a most powerful protection against anything they don’t want to see…THE DELETE KEY!
You will probably also have to remind them, sometimes in the manner of using a different platform to speak from, if their response is not to post your messages, that:
“SINCE EVERYONE HAS THEIR OWN DELETE KEY, THERE IS NO NEED TO DELETE THIS FOR THEM!
Those Who Would Be King, Part IV
My apologies for using the United States as an example so many times, but…most
Comments (0)