The Web Is Not the Internet

pigrabbitbear writes with this rant from Motherboard.vice.com: "The Internet and the World Wide Web are not the same thing. They're not synonyms. They don't even serve the same function. And, just like how England is in the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom isn't England, getting the distinction wrong means you can inadvertently sound like a dummy. Most of the time they can be used synonymously and no one will care, but if you're talking about history or technical stuff and you want to be accurate or a know-it-all or beat a computer at Jeopardy, you should know the difference. The Web was born at CERN in 1990, as a specific, visual protocol on the Internet, the global network of computers that began two decades earlier."

Comments

And 2+2=4

[dmesg0]

Now we all know.

Re:And 2+2=4

[ackthpt]

Now we all know.

But 2+2=5, for very large values of 2

This whole arguement is a single voice mumbling in a maelstrom. Rather like people pointing out the 21st century began on Jan 1, 2001, not on Jan 1, 2000 (while being utterly ignored by all the happy people partying.)

Re:And 2+2=4

[k(wi)r(kipedia)]

Now we all know.

Not if you're using base 4.

Re:And 2+2=4

[Anonymous Coward]

2+2=5, for very large values of 2

That never made sense to me. It always seemed that 2+2 should equal 6 for very large values of 2.

Re:And 2+2=4

[jellomizer]

Slowly over time, being a technical person has became from a socially award activity to something more socially acceptable, and well recognized.
We need stories like this to increase or "Anality" towards the general public, because we just can't go along being socially accepted.

But...
How much work on the internet do we do outside normal HTTP/HTTPS protocols? Most of our email clients are now Web Based. Cloud Applications tend to communicate via Web Services, On your local intranet at work, most of the stuff is Web Based...
So if I found someone who mixes Internet and World Wide Web I am not going to correct them, unless we are talking in a very technical level.

I had more issue back in the 1990's where people thought AOL was the internet. And the Only Way to get on it.

Re:And 2+2=4

[asdf7890]

(while being utterly ignored by all the happy people partying)

While sensible hedonists used the confusions as an excuse for an extra large party two years running.

Re:And 2+2=4

[Fwipp]

2.4 rounds to 2, 2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8, which rounds to 5.

Re:And 2+2=4

[logicassasin]

"I had more issue back in the 1990's where people thought AOL was the internet. And the Only Way to get on it."

dark days, indeed.

Re:And 2+2=4

[rraylion]

[insert definition of pedantic here]

Re:And 2+2=4

[Homr Zodyssey]

Even if you use a web-client to access your email, the email still uses other protocols (POP, SMTP, IMAP) to move from server to server. So yes, we are using things other than the World Wide Web. Also, I thought Web Services are were being obsoleted by WPF Services and the like...No longer restricted to HTTP protocol.

Re:And 2+2=4

[realityimpaired]

If you're going to argue that 2.9 is a large value of 2, and not a small value of 3 (in other words, if you're going to truncate rather than round), then you need to do the same action to the result as well. trunc(5.7) is 5, not 6.

Re:And 2+2=4

[cpu6502]

The author is not only wasting his time with pedancy, but also wrong. Quote: "The Web was born at CERN in 1990, as a specific, visual protocol on the Internet: the global network of computers that began two decades earlier."

No. The internet began in 1983... seven years earlier. Prior to that it was the ARPAnet with an entirely different protocol. If the guy wishes to nitpick the separation between WWW and internet, than he should be just as studious about separating internet versus ARPAnet.

Re:And 2+2=4

[allo]

thats why 2.499999...[endless nines] rounds to 3

Re:And 2+2=4

[Anonymous Coward]

As an engineer, I interpret the value 2 as anything that is usually and reasonably rounded off to 2, ie 1.50-2.49.
I interpret the value 2.0 as anything that is usually and reasonably rounded off to 2.0, ie 1.950-2.049.
I interpret the value 2.00 as anything that is usually and reasonably rounded off to 2.00, ie 1.9950-2.0049.

Thus, 2+2=5 is quite within the correct domain as 2 could mean 2.49.
It could however not mean 2.50 or 2.72 or 2.9 as those would have been rounded off to 3.

Re:And 2+2=4

[jc42]

Yeah, but if we really want to pick nits, we should also point out that "internet" and "Internet" aren't synonyms. The lower-case version was in use some years before the upper-case one was standardized and officially came into existence in 1983. Actually, I haven't been able to discover the earliest known uses of "internet". Does anyone have good data on this? (The data should include evidence that the writer(s) were actually using a definition consistent with the lower-case name.)

I wonder if we can get any pickier than that ...

Re:And 2+2=4

[jc42]

How much work on the internet do we do outside normal HTTP/HTTPS protocols?

Well, I have four terminal windows visible on my screen that are ssh'd to three different computers. There's no HTTP involved there.

Most of our email clients are now Web Based.

I'd question that. It may be true that most of the email UIs are Web based. But most of them still send the actual message across the Internet using SMTP or POP or whatever. It's possible to do this via HTTP, but an actual email protocol is a whole lot easier to program in most cases. A quick google doesn't turn up anything like real data on this topic, but maybe someone knows the actual statistics. I do know that almost all of my email has SMTP headers (though they're not always quite valid ;-)

I also find myself writing code occasionally that does ICMP and/or SNMP, but I'd guess that those are a tiny portion of IP traffic.

If you're working on unix/linux systems, you can "remote" any GUI tool by the use of the $DISPLAY variable, and this definitely doesn't involve HTTP. I know lots of people who do this routinely, but I suspect that they're not a cross section of the Internet user population .-)

Re:And 2+2=4

[JWSmythe]

... and mail doesn't go over HTTP, except for some client interfaces... ... and DB connections don't go over HTTP (They're done over an IP network, therefor they are Internet)... ... and FTP doesn't go over HTTP ... ... and NTP doesn't go over HTTP ... ... and streaming media frequently doesn't go over HTTP, although it's becoming more common ...
I want to repeat DNS, but since you already said it, I won't.

So without DNS, NTP, and DB connections, we'd have a horrible static web to look at, that would have frequent problems because the clocks are out of sync. Kinda like we had in 1995. :) Oh, how I miss Geocities, huge blinking horrible contrast pages, and dancing babies.

Re:And 2+2=4

[dead_user]

Umm, but that would be 3 + 3 = 6.

Re:And 2+2=4

[tqk]

As an engineer, I interpret the value 2 as anything that is usually and reasonably rounded off to 2 ...

Well you (and all these other idiots) should be ashamed. 2+2=4 is obviously using Integers, and there is no 2.x in the set of Integers.

You sound like a bunch of Cardinals discussing how many angels fit on the head of a pin. First you assume angels exist, and it all goes downhill from there.

Great, you're an engineer. Just don't touch anything!

Re:And 2+2=4

[Dishevel]

Rounding during calculations is a mistake.
Calculate with as much precision as you can.
Report with as much precision as you need.

Re:And 2+2=4

[realityimpaired]

How much work on the internet do we do outside normal HTTP/HTTPS protocols? Most of our email clients are now Web Based. Cloud Applications tend to communicate via Web Services, On your local intranet at work, most of the stuff is Web Based...
So if I found someone who mixes Internet and World Wide Web I am not going to correct them, unless we are talking in a very technical level.

The e-mail gets from gmail to yahoo to hotmail by way of SMTP, and your web-based e-mail client is usually an IMAP4 front-end supported by a database back-end... usually SQL or some variant of it (mssql for hotmail, mysql for yahoo, and I'm reasonably sure that gmail, while it used mysql in the past, is now using a home-grown nosql variant).

Every cloud-based "application" is also supported by a database back-end.

You also have DNS, without which you can't get into the web-based frontpage in the first place, and if we're going to start talking about low-level stuff like that you almost certainly go through a DHCP server and/or a RADIUS server before you are even able to do the DNS request.

The average user may not be aware that the technologies exists, and they almost certainly don't care, but the Internet as it's known today can't exist without them. That being said, trying to argue technical nomenclature with a non-technical person is a bit like holding back the tide with a thimble. At the end of the day, you're standing waist-deep in water with the fish nibbling at your toes, still trying to stop the water from reaching the shore.

Re:And 2+2=4

[Stickybombs]

The point was that it is imprecise to call 2.8 a large value of 2. The proper way to express it would be as a small value of 3. Sure, rounding at the end makes more sense, but if someone wants to round earlier (ie by calling it a large or small value of an integer), then the same rounding or truncating rules must be followed as are used on the end result.

Re:And 2+2=4

[Dishevel]

No.
Calculate with as much precision as you can.
Report with as much precision as you need.
This is how it should be done.

Re:And 2+2=4

[Stickybombs]

I agree, but then 2.anything can't be called a large or small value of 2. Just by referring to it as a large value of 2, there is rounding. Keep the precision, call it 2.8, and everyone is happy. As soon as it becomes 'a value of 2' that precision is gone, and rounding rules have to come into play in order to maintain any sort of correctness.

Re:And 2+2=4

[asylumx]

*whoosh* -- and I think the *whoosh* happened about 8 posts higher in the thread...

Re:And 2+2=4

[Stickybombs]

Indeed. But Slashdot is known for pointless arguments.

Re:And 2+2=4

[tqk]

How much work on the internet do we do outside normal HTTP/HTTPS protocols?

Who's "we"? If it's like an old friend of mine, Mike, IE is "The Internet", as in your AOL example.

On the other hand, if it's someone like me, you'll find me preferring wget over a web browser. I use ssh and scp a lot. I use ping and things like nslookup a lot. I much prefer mutt over any webmail client I've ever seen. I can surf over to the RISKS website to read their stuff, but Usenet's comp.risks in slrn is far preferable here.

We call web browsers "web browsers" because they browse the web. If something isn't webified (and face it, most of the Internet isn't), you'll get nowhere fast using a web browser on it.

Re:And 2+2=4

[sqldr]

I once saw a tv show about music history and one of the frames was "1989: first email sent across the web". That's wrong on so many levels.

Meanwhile, I had the following conversation with my Aunt once:

Aunt: I just bought a DVD
Me: which one?
Aunt: Panasonic

Re:And 2+2=4

[sqldr]

then you need to do the same action to the result as well

not if you're an idiot. there's no law against it. admittedly, it leads to a lot of bugs, especially with 3D graphics

Re:And 2+2=4

[crazyjj]

I love that movie.

Re:And 2+2=4

[tooyoung]

Rather like people pointing out the 21st century began on Jan 1, 2001, not on Jan 1, 2000 (while being utterly ignored by all the happy people partying.)

Maybe the people were partying becomes they saw some significance in the date changing from 1*** to 2*** and felt that had more meaning in their lives than a dictionary definition of a century or millenium.

Re:And 2+2=4

[Yaztromo]

How much work on the internet do we do outside normal HTTP/HTTPS protocols?

Quite a lot in traffic terms. Streaming video (Netflix et al.) and BitTorrent use massive amounts of traffic without a lot of HTTP(S). Lesser bandwidth uses, but still very important include VoIP, SSH, SMTP/POP3/IMAP, various instant messaging protocols, VNC...honestly, if you're doing most of your work within only HTTP, you're an internet lightweight. It's a magical Internet out there, jellomizer ol' buddy -- let's go exploring.

Yaz

Re:And 2+2=4

[harperska]

Web Services (of various breeds - SOAP, REST, etc.) over HTTP are still pretty common, as the overhead of the HTTP headers is outweighed by the simplicity of building the services. However, for certain applications where the HTTP overhead may be an issue, there are protocols that send raw data over a plain TCP socket such as the FIX protocol used for financial transactions.

Re:And 2+2=4

[Jamu]

2+2=4 is obviously using Integers, and there is no 2.x in the set of Integers.

But 2.99999[...] is an integer!

Re:And 2+2=4

[Darinbob]

If only they'd stop their partying long enough for me to point out that technically they are partying for the wrong reasons. Actually I'm making that up. I never get invited to those types of parties anymore. I don't know why, I'm full of all sorts of information like that.

Re:And 2+2=4

[mcgrew]

Ah, youngsters... I guess they don't teach rounding these days. Back when slide rules ruled, you HAD to know how to round... and you obviously don't. Of course, with computers you have insane decimal point accuracy which leads to its own silliness sometimes. And even with binary and ten digit accuracy you get rounding errors.

Anything less than half is rounded down, anything over half is rounded up. 2.2+2.2=4, since the accurate answer is 4.4. 2.3+2.3=5, since the accurate answer is 4.6 which rounds up to 5.

If it's exactly half, then you have an argument. But 2.5+2.4=4.9, still 5. 2.5+2.5 needs no rounding, as it's exactly 5.

2.6 is not a large value of two. 2.6 is rounded up, not down.

Re:And 2+2=4

[s.petry]

So without DNS, NTP, and DB connections, we'd have a horrible static web to look at, that would have frequent problems because the clocks are out of sync

Oh come now, CGI works just fine for dynamic pages... :P

Re:And 2+2=4

[tqk]

2+2=4 is obviously using Integers, and there is no 2.x in the set of Integers.

But 2.99999[...] is an integer!

Did everybody just get a lot stupider overnight?

dict integer:
integer

            (Or "whole number") One of the {finite} numbers
          in the infinite set ..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...

That "finite" and "whole number" ought to be screaming blue, bloody murder at you right now. This isn't even Math. It's Arithmetic!

Re:And 2+2=4

[gorzek]

Wouldn't that just be a floor()?

Re:And 2+2=4

[acid_andy]

2+2=4 is obviously using Integers, and there is no 2.x in the set of Integers.

But 2.99999[...] is an integer!

Did everybody just get a lot stupider overnight?

dict integer: integer

(Or "whole number") One of the {finite} numbers in the infinite set ..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ... That "finite" and "whole number" ought to be screaming blue, bloody murder at you right now. This isn't even Math. It's Arithmetic!

Whoosh!

0.999999..... = 1 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999... )
=> 2 + 0.99999.... = 2 + 1
=> 2.99999..... = 3
and 3 is an integer
=> 2.9999.... is an integer.

That being said, I've never much liked recurring decimals.

Re:And 2+2=4

[Dishevel]

so, what you said is only true when as long as the precision you *need* is the same as or less than the precision of the inputs.

I believe that my statement stands.
Calculate with as much precision as you can.
Report with as much as you need.

If you can not calculate with the precision you need for the report. ...
Well we all know what happens there.

P.S.
My boss asked me to start giving him weekly reports of Mobile Data Terminal inventory when I started working here. There was no tracking of these assets in place. So I counted the number of Vehicles in the field, added the number of MDTs I saw in the yard, then added the number in my office and those I had out for repair, and gave him the count.
He said that I was wrong and he had more of them.
We argued a bit and it ended with him telling me that he wanted the correct number on the sheet as total. He also did not want me to impiment a tracking solution for the MDTs.
The next week I gave him the report.
Leased = X
Yard = X
Office = X
Repair = X
Missing = X
Total = X
I gave him the number he wanted.
He bitched and when he would ask where the missing ones were I would ask him how given what he allows me to do I could get that information.
After a few weeks he stopped bitching. After a few months he no longer wanted the report.

Re:And 2+2=4

[painandgreed]

2+2=5, for very large values of 2

That never made sense to me. It always seemed that 2+2 should equal 6 for very large values of 2.

Depends on the units.

Re:And 2+2=4

[EvilBudMan]

That argument got us in the Vietnam War.

Re:And 2+2=4

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

So by your logic 2.6 + 2.6 can only be.
2.6 + 2.6 = 5.2
or
3 + 3 = 6
One must not blindly follow rules because they are there.
2.8 is a very high value of 2 not a low value of 3.
Rounding should be used where appropriate.
Try real hard not to start rounding when you are adding lots of shit up. You can introduce some very large errors.
2.9 + 2.9 is either 5.8 or 6
If you begin rounding during the calculations instead of at reporting the more calculations you do the more inaccurate your total can become.
It can become much more inaccurate than if you round only at the end.
But what ever makes you feel good about yourself.

I'd just like to point out that the very next story is about getting hackers girlfriends.

Anyway, continue!

Re:And 2+2=4

[dargaud]

Rather like people pointing out the 21st century began on Jan 1, 2001, not on Jan 1, 2000

I have a simple comeback for this. I ask them to count to ten, on their fingers if they need help. So they go 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10, happy ? Then I ask them to count 10 more, and then go 11, 12... and I stop them "See, you started at 11, same thing with centuries and millenia, they start at 1". Unless you are a C programmer.

Re:And 2+2=4

[Dishevel]

Well done sir.
Sadly though I am married. So due to this inconvenient and highly over rated morals subroutine in my brain I can not at this time partake of any girlfriends.
Sigh.

Re:And 2+2=4

[tqk]

2+2=4 is obviously using Integers, and there is no 2.x in the set of Integers.

But 2.99999[...] is an integer!

Did everybody just get a lot stupider overnight?
dict integer: ... (Or "whole number") One of the {finite} numbers in the infinite set ..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...
That "finite" and "whole number" ought to be screaming blue, bloody murder at you right now. This isn't even Math. It's Arithmetic!

Whoosh!

0.999999..... = 1 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999... )
=> 2 + 0.99999.... = 2 + 1

If you're here, you ought to know that 2 + 0.99999... is not an Integer operation. Mix Integers with Floating Point and it becomes a float operation, to preserve accuracy.

I will not be hiring you to write code for me.

Re:And 2+2=4

[DragonWriter]

Try real hard not to start rounding when you are adding lots of shit up. You can introduce some very large errors.

Or, better, just round and track the uncertainty. Most sensible rounding methods (to integers) result in the initial values having an uncertainty of +/-0.5 (though some give a larger uncertainty, which may be offset by other benefits, up to +/-1)

As an example, using the common round-half-up method, 2.5 + 2.5 rounds to 3 + 3. This, of course, gives 6, which seems like an "wrong" since 2.5 + 2.5 = 5.

But if you keep track of the uncertainty produced by the rounding method (+/-0.5 in each source value) its 3 (+/-0.5) + 3 (+/-0.5) = 6 (+/-1)

This can be useful, since the uncertainty produce by the rounding method is knowable independent of the particular data values -- if you are summing 100 numbers, the total uncertainty is +/-50 -- and when you are doing sums without technical aid, its often for tasks where very broad ballpark numbers are suitable, so long as you know what the range is that the actual results would fall in.

2.9 + 2.9 is either 5.8 or 6

No, 2.9 + 2.9 is 5.8, no options available. If you round before computing, depending on rounding method, it might compute as 5 (+/-1), 6 (+/-1), or something similar -- and if its rounded after computation it would be (knowing only the rounding method and not the original result) 6 (+/-0.5) by most rounding methods, or something else that includes the 5.8 in its range by some of the less obvious ones.

Re:And 2+2=4

[acid_andy]

2+2=4 is obviously using Integers, and there is no 2.x in the set of Integers.

But 2.99999[...] is an integer!

Did everybody just get a lot stupider overnight? dict integer: ... (Or "whole number") One of the {finite} numbers in the infinite set ..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ... That "finite" and "whole number" ought to be screaming blue, bloody murder at you right now. This isn't even Math. It's Arithmetic!

Whoosh!

0.999999..... = 1 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999... ) => 2 + 0.99999.... = 2 + 1

If you're here, you ought to know that 2 + 0.99999... is not an Integer operation. Mix Integers with Floating Point and it becomes a float operation, to preserve accuracy.

I will not be hiring you to write code for me.

Who said anything about code? I was talking mathematics, not types in programming languages. Sure, if you foolishly attempted to represent the number 3 in a similar form in program source code by typing in lots of 9s you're doomed to failure; but I'm sure in this case the poster was referring to a recurring decimal - hence there are infinite 9s, in which case this is accepted by orthodox mathematicians as being equal to the corresponding integer i.e. 0.99999... (recurring) = 1, 2.99999.. (recurring) = 3 and so on.

Their post had nothing to do with rounding. It was a joke. Slightly pedantic, perhaps, but a joke nonetheless.

You might have a case that the representation of the value 1 in the form 0.99999... cannot be called an integer, but I don't have enough grounding in number (or set?) theory to comment further on that. If it's applied maths / engineering / coding you're interested in then this is probably all largely irrelevant, most of the time.

Re:And 2+2=4

[Kittenman]

Rather like people pointing out the 21st century began on Jan 1, 2001, not on Jan 1, 2000

I have a simple comeback for this. I ask them to count to ten, on their fingers if they need help. So they go 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10, happy ? Then I ask them to count 10 more, and then go 11, 12... and I stop them "See, you started at 11, same thing with centuries and millenia, they start at 1". Unless you are a C programmer.

Please. This 'when did the new millenium/century start' thing was dull the first time. I'm just thankful I'll miss it next time 'round.

Re:And 2+2=4

[tqk]

hence there are infinite 9s, in which case this is accepted by orthodox mathematicians as being equal to the corresponding integer i.e. 0.99999... (recurring) = 1 ...

Which is insane. By its very existence, 0.99999... is not supposed to be equal to 1, else why have it in the first place?!?

I liked this world a lot more when I just had to dabble in philosophy, or then in specific tech implementations, or polysci, ... When you guys insist on morphing them all together like this, it hurts my head.

0.99... is not supposed to equal 1. Mathematicians, bite my shiny metal ass.

Re:And 2+2=4

[Hognoxious]

2.9 + 2.9 is either 5.8 or 6

Earlier you claimed that 2.9 was 2.

I'm intrigued as to how a smaller fraction goes up while a larger one goes down.

Is this what they call bankers' rounding? Perhaps it's the method Barclays use.

Re:And 2+2=4

[Bugs42]

So are you saying we have no need for things like x/x or x^0? After all, for any x those = 1 and there's no need to have multiple representations....
Or maybe math is just a bit more complicated than you'd prefer and having multiple ways of representing something is sometimes helpful? Nah, couldn't be.

Re:And 2+2=4

[Algae_94]

It's a math operation. Don't assume we are talking about adding with a computer in code. We are talking about theoretical math. and 2 + 0.99999.... is an integer operation, because 0.999... repeating 9's forever, is an integer. It is 1.

Re:And 2+2=4

[Scarletdown]

Yes, but apart from DNS, databases, FTP, NTP and streaming, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Wine, orgies, and the ability to joke about Uranus?

Re:And 2+2=4

[jedwidz]

A database server exposed directly to the internet (e.g. an Oracle server on port 1521) would be pretty unusual I reckon, and in most cases it'd be a mistake - either redundant and unintentional, or intentional but done without regard to security.

In the context of user-initiated use of the internet for the average user, equating the internet with the WWW is pretty accurate these days. Outside of that context, it's technically incorrect.

This trend is part usability improvement (everything is accomplished via a web browser) and part security improvement (fewer ports, protocols and clients to vet).

Re:And 2+2=4

[sp332]

Why do we have 1.0 and 1.00 and 1.000 and 1.0000... and 1/1 and 2/2 and 3/3 and 4/4... and 1^0 and 2^0 and 3^0 and 4^0 and... they're all 1, and so is 0.99999....

Re:And 2+2=4

[tqk]

Or maybe math is just a bit more complicated than you'd prefer and having multiple ways of representing something is sometimes helpful?

Or maybe math, as performed by mathematicians, is a bit more contrived and ambiguous by design, and maybe you ought to think of reality from time to time? 0.999... != 1, FFS!

Yes, you can do almost magical things if you postulate stuff like the square root of -1, but what does it *really* mean other than filling in a blank in a contrived mind fuck of an equation?

I love math and wish I was a lot better at it, but assholes playing with 2+2=[56] are not helping at all. This stuff is supposed to be useful/informative, not confusing by design (cf. string theory).

Re:And 2+2=4

[tqk]

It's a math operation. Don't assume we are talking about adding with a computer in code. We are talking about theoretical math. and 2 + 0.99999.... is an integer operation, because 0.999... repeating 9's forever, is an integer. It is 1.

Damn, you guys are arrogant. Think of some kid in grade five trying to make sense of this crap! 0.999... *is NOT* an integer!!!111

Damnit. Jeebus!

Re:And 2+2=4

[aisrael]

I think this qualifies as a pointed argument.

Re:And 2+2=4

[stepho-wrs]

for things like x/x or x^0? After all, for any x those = 1

x/x = 1 for x != 0
x/x undefined for x=0

Division by 0 is never allowed.

Re:And 2+2=4

[overlordofmu]

How dare you call this a pointless argument?

And you libel slashdot with the same sentence?

A pox upon your house and damn your eyes, sir!

Re:And 2+2=4

[Whiteox]

I think all of you in this 2+2 discussion have forgotten in that some early versions of B.A.S.I.C. integers were always rounded down as there was no provisions for a decimal place.

Re:And 2+2=4

[jasomill]

Do understand correctly that you are, in fact, dismissing the notion of calculating with inexact quantities derived from empirical observation as a masturbatory philosophical exercise?

Re:And 2+2=4

[JWSmythe]

  You should try this out yourself.   Set yourself up a Linux box to be an iptables firewall, between your machine and the Internet.  Only allow port 80 and 443, and see how well things work.  Things aren't getting simpler, they're getting more complex.

  Here's part of one of one personal firewall that I maintain.

@fw_pub_tcp_ports = (
"20",        # FTP Data (non-pasv)
"21",        # FTP
"25",        # STMP
"43",        # Whois
"53",        # DNS
"80",        # HTTP
"110",       # POP3
"123",       # NTP
"143",       # IMAP
"443",       # HTTPS
"465",       # SMTPS
"587",       # SMTP Alt
"990",       # FTPS
"993",       # IMAPS
"995",       # POP3S
"465",       # SMTPS
"1194",      # OpenVPN
"4321",      # rWhois
"1237",      # Star Trek Online
"5228",      # Star Trek Online
"7000:8000", # Star Trek online
"7000:7005", # Star Trek Online
"7046",      # Star Trek Online
"7202",      # Star Trek Online
"7224",      # Star Trek Online
"7255",      # Star Trek Online
"7301",      # Star Trek Online
"7325",      # Star Trek Online
"7399",      # Star Trek Online
"7403",      # Star Trek Online
"7405",      # Star Trek Online
"7400:7420",      # Star Trek Online
"7416",      # Star Trek Online
"7387",      # Star Trek Online
"7499",      # Star Trek Online
"8995",      # EA Games
"27030:27040", #steam installer
"1119:1120", # Blizzard
"3724",      # Blizzard
"4000",      # Blizzard
"6112:6119", # Blizzard
"6881:6999", # Blizzard
"12000:12999", # EA Games (ST:TOR)
"20000:30000", # EA Games (ST:TOR)
"2870:2871",   # EA Games (ST:TOR)
"8995",        # EA Games (ST:TOR)
"3479",        # EA Games (ST:TOR)
"27015:27016", # Brink
"8766",        # Brink

Re:And 2+2=4

[JWSmythe]

Ahh, the good old days...

#!/usr/bin/perl

open(FILE, "somefile.txt");
while (<FILE>){
  print $_;
};
close(FILE);

Re:And 2+2=4

[JWSmythe]

How has society shifted away from all these true pleasures of life?

    (There be Kingons around Uranus! HA!)

Re:And 2+2=4

[Bugs42]

Damn, I've been out-pedanted! Time to hand in my geek card.

Re:And 2+2=4

[angel'o'sphere]

Well my personal use is in terms of amount of data surely also has Web at the top. However in terms of "Information" I assume I read and get and send more emails than I read web pages.
The next big thing in "traffic" is gaming.

And the overall data transport in the internet has at its top still various torrents and: eMail. As far as I remember the whole mass of eMails every year outnumbers all HTTP transfer by far (was on /. a year ago or so).

Most people *I*' know use a real eMail program. As most Web based eMail services allow POP3 and IMAP access.

Re:And 2+2=4

[doccus]

Indeed. But Slashdot is known for pointless arguments.

Certainly they no longer add "Stuff that Matters" to the sub-title ;-)

Re:And 2+2=4

[Algae_94]

Luckily, most people continue to learn math after grade 5. If you're willing to say that 1 is not an integer, then 0.9999..... is not an integer. Conversely, tell me what the difference is between 1 and 0.99999... by difference I mean subtract the two numbers. How about this, 1 = 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 right? then 1 = 0.33333.....+0.33333......+0.33333....... = 0.9999999.....

If a number is contained by the set of integers(the number 1), any representation of that number that is equal to that number is also in the same set of integers, since it is the same number.

Re:And 2+2=4

[tqk]

If you're willing to say that 1 is not an integer ...

No. It certainly is an Integer.

... then 0.9999..... is not an integer.

Agreed.

Conversely, tell me what the difference is between 1 and 0.99999

They're in different number systems. One's (pun intended) an integer, and the other's a Rational (?) number. The latter can be rounded up to the other and the Integers are a subset of the Rationals but the former does not equal the latter.

Conversely, tell me what the difference is between 1 and 0.99999...

Does that "0.99999..." mean "0.99 repetend"? That's difficult to answer (how big is infinity?). Otherwise:
echo "1 - 0.99999" | bc -l .00001

How about this, 1 = 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 right? then 1 = 0.33333.....+0.33333......+0.33333....... = 0.9999999.....

echo "100 / 3" | bc -l
33.33333333333333333333
which I assume means "33.333 repetend". That's called an approximation. Approximation doesn't mean "equals."

If a number is contained by the set of integers (the number 1), any representation of that number that is equal to that number is also in the same set of integers, since it is the same number.

"0.999 repetend" in the Rational Number system is a close approximation in that system to the number one in the Integer number system.

How many angels can you fit on the head of a pin? FYI, I'm a High School dropout, so this is Grade Ten stuff for me. I may not remember correctly Rational, Irrational, Real, & etc. I've always loved math but I've never considered myself good at it. I still seriously despise my eight grade math teacher for having tried to suck all the fun out of it in the name of regimentation. Bastard!

Re:And 2+2=4

[lennier]

>I had more issue back in the 1990's where people thought AOL was the internet. And the Only Way to get on it.

That's so funny! We know much better now. In 2012, The One True Way to get the Internet is Facebook.

Interweb

[TechwoIf]

It is interweb, not internet. ;-)

Re:Interweb

[boristdog]

interwebs is plural, duh.

Re:Interweb

[mech_knight]

interwebs is plural, duh.

Interwebs ARE plural, duh.

Re:Interweb

[Quiet_Desperation]

Always been partial to intertubes.

Re:Interweb

[Chuck Chunder]

What you do in the privacy of your own home is none of our business.

Re:Interweb

[Anonymous Coward]

Interwebs and internets are both plural, as any lolcat will tell you :-)

In reference to the article: sheesh. I ran the original WorldWideWeb application on a NeXT workstation. Yes, I know what the difference is between the Internet and the World Wide Web. I don't bother trying to make that distinction with anyone other than technical people. With anyone else it is futile. If you try to explain it you may as well be talking in lolcat as far as they are concerned.

Re:Interweb

[wbr1]

interwebs is plural, duh.

Interwebz has a 'z' in it duh.

Re:Interweb

[ackthpt]

It is interweb, not internet. ;-)

"You got your Internet in my Web!"

"You got your Web in my Internet!"

It's a whole new taste sensation! Alert the news! Oh, they don't care, there's a traffic accident or a house on fire or Tom Cruise is having another arranged marriage...

Re:Interweb

[Quiet_Desperation]

I deserved that.

Re:Interweb

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you are talking about a word (singular). In this case, the fact the word itself is plural is irrelevant. This, the correct verb is "is."

Re:Interweb

[stevegee58]

And all this time I thought it was a toaster.

Re:Interweb

[MachineShedFred]

Or, when referring to social media, I just call it the "FaceTubes"

Re:Interweb

[JWSmythe]

    Intertubewebpipepornnetonline. It's a lot to say, but when I say it sarcastically at someone using any wrong part of it, they usually realize they shouldn't have taken Internet advice from the late Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK).

Re:Interweb

[jcwayne]

Actually, I believe, interwebs is a singular collective noun. Therefore the correctness of is/are depends on which version of English you prefer.

Re:Interweb

[antdude]

I am naked and reading /. at hot home. How's that? :P

Re:Interweb

[White Flame]

But it all runs on The Cloud!

Re:Interweb

[sqldr]

What you do in the privacy of your own home is none of our business.

OK mate. But I'll tell you anyway. It involves goose fat and waders and by the end of it it's hard to tell what's shit and what's chocolate.

Re:Interweb

[tqk]

Always been partial to intertubes.

You misspelled Intartubes.

Re:Interweb

[DragonWriter]

No, you are talking about a word (singular).

In which case, it should be "'Interwebs' is plural." (or, "'Interwebs' is a plural".) Omitting the quotes is a use/mention error.

Re:Interweb

[Quiet_Desperation]

Erh merh gerd! It der interhterbs... it terk mer jerb!

And so on...

Re:Interweb

[gmhowell]

I am naked and reading /. at hot home. How's that? :P

How is your hot grits situation? And are you petrified as well?

Re:Interweb

[antdude]

Nope. :P

Re:Interweb

[Whiteox]

Doesn't this have to do with the pipes of the internet?

Re:Interweb

[Dracophile]

t3h intergoogle

well duh

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not news for nerds or stuff that matters.

Re:well duh

[Quiet_Desperation]

Not sure it's news for anyone. I know completely nontech folks who get the distinction because the use the web along with email and messaging and video streaming and online gaming. They seem to refer to the "web" when appropriate, and when they occasionally don't, who the hell cares?

Re:well duh

[eternaldoctorwho]

*I* care! That is OUR word! You are not allowed to use it.

Re:well duh

[Wovel]

I did a poll of my 3 year old son, my wife, and my 85 year old grandmother, none of them thought this was news. How does this crap get on the front page. This site is turning into a vanity press for people who can game the firehose.

Re:well duh

[kelemvor4]

This is not news for nerds or stuff that matters.

Slashdot needs to allow a +10 insightful for this comment...

Re:well duh

[Klync]

Well, you can have the firehose, which can be gamed, or you can have VA Systems^W^W Geeknet spend their hard-earned revenues on hiring editors like Timothy to hand-curate the content.... which would *you* prefer?

Re:well duh

[sqldr]

I did a poll of my 3 year old son, my wife, and my 85 year old grandmother

I was gonna do that, but I would have to dig up the patio

This story is for idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is jumping the fucking shark. This story belongs on CNN.com, where their tech reporters are busy giving the dead Steve Jobs rimjobs every day.

Re:This story is for idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

CNN.com, where their tech reporters are busy giving the dead Steve Jobs rimjobs every day.

That's impossible. Jobs worked at Apple, not Research In Motion.

Why, thank you for that pedantic rant

[crazyjj]

Bet you're a hoot at parties. I can only imagine how charming a fellow you are when someone uses the term "hacker" to refer to someone who breaks into computer systems.

Re:Why, thank you for that pedantic rant

[CronoCloud]

I'd wager the writer of the article talks like Sheldon on Big Bang Theory. Not that there's anything wrong with being an asexual pedantic, asperger features nerd with an obsession for nerd minutiae on a rather funny sitcom.

Re:Why, thank you for that pedantic rant

[lurker1997]

Bet you're a hoot at parties. I can only imagine how charming a fellow you are when someone uses the term "hacker" to refer to someone who breaks into computer systems.

That begs the question, how did this get onto the front page of slashdot in the first place?

why are you telling us?

[j2.718ff]

Is this meant to imply that the average slashdot reader doesn't know the difference between the internet and the web?

Re:why are you telling us?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't.
Just count the number of people that claim the internet was created at cern when responding to people than correctly state that the internet was created by DARPA in the United States.

Re:why are you telling us?

[nedlohs]

I count exactly 0.

If fact seaching for CERN (other than hits on the word concern) returns one post which uses CERN (and its reply):

Europe did jack squat towards forming the internet.

You've heard of a little thing called the world wide web, yes?

The thing you're using to post this?

Guess what - it came from CERN.... in case you don't know, that's in the EU.

Which displays a distinct lack of knowledge of either EU membership or the location of CERN and an inability to indicate quotations from what it is replying to. But it's certainly clear that it is refering to the WWW when it says "it came from CERN".

So please be specific with this people and their posts you counted at that url getting it wrong.

Re:why are you telling us?

[Xest]

To be fair this stems more from rather sloppy use of the term EU as shorthand for Europe, rather than referring to the European Union itself.

It's similar to the way people use the term America to refer to the United States of America, rather than the Americas.

I suspect the use of the term EU to mean Europe itself did indeed stem somewhat from people not knowing the difference to an extent, but it's not uncommon that you will find people who genuinely do know the difference saying EU when they mean Europe as a whole.

Laymen's Terms

[russlar]

The internet is a series of tubes, the web are the cats clogging the tubes.

Re:Laymen's Terms

[Samantha Wright]

Not in the OSI model, they're not! They're clearly a 7.

This is Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck happened to this site? Seriously.

I used to come here daily to get my news fix and now it's more like once a month... and I'm immediately disappointed in the quality. I can't even be bothered to log in anymore.

This is amazingly horrible.

Re:This is Slashdot?

[fluffythedestroyer]

Thats pure bullshit, you read /. news everyday...liar. i see your posts... I'm /. stalking you... lol

Re:This is Slashdot?

[datavirtue]

I stay logged in. But I agree, this site is painful anymore, and I find myself browsing it less and less--ignoring stories more and more with an eye roll. To me, it is sad as there are no other communities which equal what /. once was. I would pay for membership to clean it up. Free sites are becoming useless because of crap invited by the ability of people to signup and post without barrier.

Re:This is Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

s/anymore/nowadays/

Stop using anymore in the affirmative.

Re:This is Slashdot?

[Spottywot]

As a relative latecomer to Slashdot I have to agree. You only have to click one of the older 'if you enjoy this story you may also like' links, and read a genuine story followed by an interesting discussion that is actually related to the article, to realise how far downhill this place has gone. *Sigh*

Re:This is Slashdot?

[Pinky]

You think it was good in your day! Ha! In my day it was a shining beacon of concentrated awesomeness. We used to have a commander who was also a taco and there was this cowboy fella who used to do all the polls. It all went downhill after they came up with the concept of adding login credentials.

Re:This is Slashdot?

[__aaeihw9960]

there are no other communities which equal what /. once was

That's actually a type of cognitive bias. . . .

Re:This is Slashdot?

[Evil Pete]

No. It has deteriorated. I've been reading /. since the late 90s. At first there were many very intelligent and constructive people who would give very detailed and measured responses. The general level of background knowledge was higher. There were less examples of outright ignorance in posts. Then it became more and more popular and the quality went down. But at least it was still funny. But it is no longer the strong source of memes that it once was, and you get bored of that stuff quickly anyway. Too much ranting and not enough informing. I don't have any suggestions on how to fix it. Maybe this is the steady state of /. and the beginning was just an abnormal period.

Tubes

[xenoc_1]

When were the tubes born?

Re:Tubes

[fluffythedestroyer]

In a porn lab research center so they can prepare the Internet we know today

Can a story be modded "Troll" or "Flamebait"?

[logicassasin]

We're on Slashdot... It's 2012... I'm pretty sure that this "revelation" was unnecessary for those that frequent this site.

Re:Can a story be modded "Troll" or "Flamebait"?

[ackthpt]

We're on Slashdot... It's 2012... I'm pretty sure that this "revelation" was unnecessary for those that frequent this site.

Yeah. Now we can return to our Gopher and Archie servers and get some real research done...

Re:Can a story be modded "Troll" or "Flamebait"?

[fluffythedestroyer]

What matters me is that people voted to get this article on the front page ? who the fucked voted for this piece of shit news ?

Re:Can a story be modded "Troll" or "Flamebait"?

[logicassasin]

I suggest they be tortured, or at the very least subjected to a Ludovico-style "reconditioning" to ensure this never happens again.

Re:Can a story be modded "Troll" or "Flamebait"?

[DragonWriter]

Can a story be modded "Troll" or "Flamebait"?

If stories could be modded, this story would argue for adding a new "Obvious" mod.

Re:Can a story be modded "Troll" or "Flamebait"?

[Whiteox]

Tell me more of this 'Ludovico' that you speak of?

The article's wrong too

[Bogtha]

What's not on it: Lots of stuff. E-mail, smartphone apps, peer-to-peer file-sharing networks, instant messaging programs, FTP, and Usenet, for example.

The web is not simply whatever is transmitted over HTTP. It's an information space, where anything addressable by URI is a leaf in the node. For instance, a telephone number is part of the web because of tel: URIs. Most of the things on his list are part of the web too - there are FTP and NNTP protocols. And in fact, some P2P networks work over HTTP anyway.

From Tim Berners-Lee himself, writing in 1996:

An information object is "on the web" if it has a URI.

Re:The article's wrong too

[Sarten-X]

The Internet is a network of computers. The World Wide Web is a network of information. The Semantic Web is a network of information with contextual meaning in an annotated (preferably machine-readable) form.

Re:The article's wrong too

[Hentes]

But those services don't follow the W3C standards, so strictly speaking they are not web.

Re:The article's wrong too

[firewrought]

The web is not simply whatever is transmitted over HTTP. It's an information space, where anything addressable by URI is a leaf in the node.

The web is an "information space" with abstract entities that cannot (necessarily) be located or interpreted in any consistent way? Sorry, but even though you have cited mightly (invoking the great TBL himself), this is strictly an academic viewpoint. It's cute, but I wouldn't bring it up in a job interview.

For practicioners, the web is a specific technological ecosystem backed by a specific set of protocols and a handful of major players. And NNTP ain't it.

Re:The article's wrong too

[Opportunist]

"The web" is mostly marketing buzzcrap. So if anything, it's a disinformation space.

Re:The article's wrong too

[Kjella]

I think he meant "on the web" as in "accessible from the web", since there's a ton of protocols that have never ever been part of any web browser. Yes, a web page may link to a mailto: URI, but at least traditionally that would always launch an e-mail client that speaks other protocols like SMTP, POP3 and IMAP. It's just a way to hand you off to a specific spot outside the web by passing parameters, not part of the web. Just like me launching a web page from my application doesn't make it a web browser, I just handed you off to a specific location on the web. Those non-HTTP links are a great boon to the web to be sure, but only the links are on the web. Whatever they point to are outside it.

I'm generally not anal about it though, I usually sneak in a "it's not web-based but..." continuing the conversation rather than stop and outright contradict them. If they're curious about it I'll explain that there are different protocols just like us humans have different languages, the web uses a very popular one but it's not the only one. Webmail is a good example, why is it called that and not just email? Because email wasn't originally on the web - in fact it's older than the web, so if you use an email client like Outlook you're not using the web. Webmail was created so you could talk to the email system from your web browser. The smart people will understand that there's a whole system back there talking in other ways, the rest well you hopefully haven't confused them too much.

Re:The article's wrong too

[Bogtha]

I think he meant "on the web" as in "accessible from the web"

No, he meant what he wrote. No need to twist his words.

Yes, a web page may link to a mailto: URI, but at least traditionally that would always launch an e-mail client that speaks other protocols like SMTP, POP3 and IMAP. It's just a way to hand you off to a specific spot outside the web by passing parameters, not part of the web.

Just because a web browser doesn't handle a particular protocol natively, it doesn't mean that it's not part of the web. Some web browsers support FTP, some do not. Does that mean a resource accessible through FTP is or is not part of the web depending on which browser is used to access it? Of course not.

Once more, from Tim Berners-Lee:

The access scheme is by definition the highest point of flexibility. What does that mean? It means that if the whole Web develops problems which we cannot solve within the existing protocols, or if new spaces are designed which really can't be accessed through or mapped into existing spaces, then we can create a new space. We have faith that we will be able to use this flexibility point in the future, because it worked successfully for integrating the older spaces such as Gopher and FTP spaces into the Web.

...and from the W3C's Architecture of the World Wide Web :

The Web's protocols (including HTTP, FTP, SOAP, NNTP, and SMTP)

The web has always been more than simply "what you read over HTTP in a web browser". That's the opinion of its creator, the opinion of the organisation that manages is, and the description detailed by myriad defining documents.

Re:The article's wrong too

[funky_vibes]

Just because Tim tries to retroactively include everything and the kitchen sink in his definition, in the effort to promote his agenda, doesn't mean he isn't wrong.
Most people in the know would define the web strictly as the w3 standardised stuff that normally runs on ports 80 and 443.
Just because you can ftp:// in a url doesn't make it part of the web, it can't even link back.
Even if it did, you'd have a much stronger argument in arguing that PDF and MS-word documents, or Flash are part of the web too, which they clearly aren't.

ISPs have many times tried to cheat customers into accepting web-connections rather than internet-connections. AOL, compuserv etc?

The internet was designed to withstand a nuclear attack, clearly the web cannot.

Therefore we have some very compelling reasons to make a strong distinction between the words.

The web is an ugly confusing mess, don't drag the beautiful internet, that made it all possible, into it.

Re:The article's wrong too

[tqk]

For practicioners, the web is a specific technological ecosystem backed by a specific set of protocols and a handful of major players.

Mostly true, but you're ignoring its most prevalent feature today. It's a system intent on selling eyeballs on page views. TBL had a vision, but what he envisioned isn't what the marketroids cared about.

fuck this

[Anonymous Coward]

It's time to start a petition go fire timothy.

Re:fuck this

[fluffythedestroyer]

he aint the problem, people who voted to get this story on the front page ARE the problem. I want all those people banned, fired, tortured, etc.

Re:fuck this

[datavirtue]

Yes, every one of his posts are ridiculously out of line with our interests. It is like someone hired my grandmother to moderate. I love her, but I don't want her posting to /.

Re:fuck this

[tqk]

I want all those people banned, fired, tortured, etc.

Destroyed, perhaps? Now who could we call on short notice to destroy people...

MafiAA! They'll turn on anything, even mistakenly, even if it's not a threat to them. Tied up with lawyers for the rest of your life is the modern definition of a fate worse than death.

Re:Facebook ...

[ackthpt]

... also isn't the Internet.

You spelt it wrong - it's with a little 'f'

And it's zuckernet to the faithful.

Please fix SLASH-13942

[badboy_tw2002]

Bug report for SLASH-13942

It appears a comment from "Mr. Pedantic" filed to story "Web is growing at exponential rate" was somehow posted to the front page instead of being attached to the article.

Re:the firehose

[Jeng]

The next submission to be accepted.

http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif

And what is the Internet?

[Cyberax]

And what is the Internet? The best definition I know is: "The largest equivalence class in the reflexive transitive symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'" by Seth Breidbart. Which is somewhat of a mouthful.

Who can give a better definition?

Re:And what is the Internet?

[Dragonslicer]

An internet is simply two or more networks (e.g. LANs) connected together in such a way that they can communicate.

The Internet is the internet that most networks are part of.

Re:And what is the Internet?

[Anubis IV]

Before I start with my definition, how familiar are you with tubes?

Re:And what is the Internet?

[Angrywhiteshoes]

The internet is an abstract layer of reality where all men can beatup every other man and all women are super models. You have limitless skills and know everything (mostly thanks to wikipedia). It is a magical realm where everyone is rich and normal life's pissing contests are exaggerated beyond belief.

Please feel free to add to this definition.

Re:And what is the Internet?

[roman_mir]

The Internet is the computer.

Re:And what is the Internet?

[bug1]

And what is the Internet? The best definition I know is: "The largest equivalence class in the reflexive transitive symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'" by Seth Breidbart. Which is somewhat of a mouthful.

The internet is a network of networks.

Re:And what is the Internet?

[Xest]

An international network of devices.

Re:And what is the Internet?

[Cyberax]

So is X.25 or analog phone network.

Re:And what is the Internet?

[Xest]

We're not defining what an international network of devices is, we're defining what the internet is, and the internet is an international network of devices.

If someone asks you what type of animal a frog is, you would probably describe it as an amphibian. Just because a newt is also an amphibian does not mean that a frog can no longer also be described as such.

The analog phone network may well also be an international network of devices, but that doesn't mean the internet isn't. Your question was to define the internet.

Re:And what is the Internet?

[angel'o'sphere]

Your definition is wrong :D but as it is your definition you can stick to it if you want.

What is a network? A connection of nodes, in our case computers, connected with "wires" for communication. The aim is to transfer data or access date from one node to another node. Such a network usually is pretty private, like in an ORGanization or EDUcational facility (university) or GOVermental etc.

In other words the computers in the university can only talk to other computers at the university.

Now you are INTERconnecting the university network with another private network, perhaps another university.

The interconnected (previously seperated) networks form the internet. Nothing international in it ... except that the national internets got interconnected later as well :D

Re:And what is the Internet?

[Xest]

Erm, I think you need to go back to school.

There is absolutely nothing about the term network whether used in the context of computing or not that implies it is some private entity, a network is simply nothing more than a group of interconnected nodes, how they connect, or where they connect is completely irrelevant.

The term network stems from the mathematical definition of a network, which is merely a series of interconnected nodes.

If you're going to assert that someone is wrong at least have a clue about what you are talking about. When you connect two networks, you merely have a bigger network. You can still say this bigger network is composed of smaller networks (in otherwords, subnetworks, often abbreviated to subnets), but that doesn't stop it being a network in itself.

The term is associated directly to the mathematical definition of network, which similarly uses this terminology. Go look it up sometime.

Re:And what is the Internet?

[angel'o'sphere]

you claim: internet means international network.
I say: wrong.

Internet means: interconnected networks.

The one who should go back to school is you.

I described precisely how from disjunct networks interconnected networks evolved.

Do you really think a bunch of nodes connected with copper wires, and another bunch of nodes connected with glass fibres can simply be connected to be just more nodes in just a bigger network?

Why don't you simply google for the history of the internet? Start with ARPA net ... then continue with when and how and why TCP and IP (in our days just called TCP/IP) got developed.

The term is associated directly to the mathematical definition of network, which similarly uses this terminology. Go look it up sometime.
This is complete bollocks. So there is some international mathematical network in the internet? oO!

Perhaps the mathematical definition of a network follows the natural occurances of networks?

Re:And what is the Internet?

[Xest]

"you claim: internet means international network.
I say: wrong."

Yes, you can say wrong all you want, but it doesn't make you right. What bit of my definition are you disagreeing with? are you arguing that the internet isn't international? are you arguing that it's not a network? or both?

"Do you really think a bunch of nodes connected with copper wires, and another bunch of nodes connected with glass fibres can simply be connected to be just more nodes in just a bigger network?"

Yes. You apparently still completely fail to understand what a network is. A network simply describes the fact that these nodes connect together somehow, the fact that two different networks use different connection mediums whilst using a gateway to link between them doesn't change the fact that they're all still part of a network. It kind of scares me that you bill yourself as an OO mentor, yet you seem to have a profound inability to grasp the separation between the abstract concept of a network and the actual physical implementation. If you are not capable of understanding the difference between a concept and an implementation, how can you possibly be competent with OO technologies???

"This is complete bollocks. So there is some international mathematical network in the internet? oO!"

Oh my god. You really do not have a clue what you're on about whatsoever do you? A network is absolutely nothing more than a set of interconnected nodes, what about the internet do you think does not fit into this definition? are you trying to argue that devices on the internet do not count as nodes? are you trying to argue that these nodes aren't interconnected? If it's the latter then that makes no sense either, because you have to be connected to some node on the internet to be able to be connected to the internet.

"Perhaps the mathematical definition of a network follows the natural occurances of networks?"

You realise the concept of networks has been along far longer than computer networks right? Even in the 1800s the term was used to describe rail, rivers, canals, walkways. The fact that each of these things is in itself doesn't change the fact that combined they are part of a bigger network - a transportation network.

Perhaps the problem is that you're not a native English speaker and hence this is why you don't understand the use of these terms very well? Either way, I fail to see how anyone with even a basic grasp of the concepts can fail to realise that the internet is an international network, because it is most definitely international in nature, and is most definitely a network.

Look if you don't get it fine, but you're simply wrong, your argument shows a profound lack of understanding of what a network actually is and that's fine, if you don't understand something you don't understand something, but don't try and pretend you do, as you're clearly way out of your depth in this discussion.

Re:And what is the Internet?

[angel'o'sphere]

All your arguing has nothing to do with the fact that "Internet" is a name.

Like Elephant is a name for a type of animal.

You didn not argue "the internet *is* an international network" you argued "the name internet comes from the fact that it is international".

If you say the name comes from "international network" then you are wrong. Even during the time where it was *not* international it already was called internet.

As you are obvioulsy to lazy to read up the "definition" and the "evolution" of this particular thing called "internet" I think any discussion is pointless.

Even in the 1800s the term was used to describe rail, rivers, canals, walkways. The fact that each of these things is in itself doesn't change the fact that combined they are part of a bigger network - a transportation network.

Exactly my point :D Seems you don't graps it.
If you interconnect a railway network with a river network, what do you get then? Certainly not a standard bigger network.

What you get is pretty simple: you get a network with two nodes. And each of those nodes is a network in itself. Just like the internet, an interconnection of networks, where every node of the network is not a computer!! but a subnetwork! This is what you fail to grasp.

Claiming that I Iack understanding regarding networks is plain stupid, as you see at my signature I'm very involved in all kinds of networks :D

Re:And what is the Internet?

[Xest]

Right, I guess the problem really is that you have a poor comprehension of English.

The question was to provide a definition for the internet. My response was:

"An international network of devices."

I said nothing about naming, or anything like that, I provided a completely correct answer. You don't seem to be able to understand that, but it's not really my fault you don't know English very well. You're now twisting your whole argument to base it on some premise that never actually existed, so kindly stop making shit up, you're still wrong however you try and twist it.

Regardless, I still want to point out how utterly lacking in knowledge of the subject you are, as it's the only hope that people like you will get a clue, rather than laughably making a fool of yourself by demonstrating repeatedly how wrong you are:

"Exactly my point :D Seems you don't graps it.
If you interconnect a railway network with a river network, what do you get then? Certainly not a standard bigger network."

Yes you do, this was exactly my point, so I don't know why you've said "exactly my point" and then completely failed to grasp the point. If you combine the river and rail network then yes, you do get a bigger network, you get whatever that network is defining, it may be a boat/rail transportation network for example. You still completely fail to grasp what networks are, and well, I guess that sucks for you.

"What you get is pretty simple: you get a network with two nodes. And each of those nodes is a network in itself. Just like the internet, an interconnection of networks, where every node of the network is not a computer!! but a subnetwork! This is what you fail to grasp."

No you still don't get it. You have two networks, made up of say for example, 30 computers, you connect them together, and you now have a larger network of 60 computers, which is comprised of two subnetworks. Those subnetworks can be treated as networks in themselves, but ultimately the internet still remains an international network of devices, even if those devices are themselves subdivided into subnetworks. It's really not rocket science, I don't know why you struggle to badly to grasp the concept.

"Claiming that I Iack understanding regarding networks is plain stupid, as you see at my signature I'm very involved in all kinds of networks :D"

Great, but you still don't know what the fuck you're on about. See this definition from Princeton for example:

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=internet

But I suppose you'll come back and tell me that people at Princeton don't know as well as you or something either.

Just admit it, you are wrong, trust me, it's much easier than continuing to make a fool of yourself.

Re:O...

[ackthpt]

...kay?

Yeah, I know. Tell that to the people at the bus stop, all texting and surfing and nattering on their smartypants phones and watch their eyes glaze over.

sorry I was late, boss. was at the stop and someone made my eyes glaze over and I was so distracted I missed the bus.

How did this get to the front page?

[medv4380]

This is a meaningless argument that isn't even a story. This should be on something lower than Idle Slashdot.

Was it visual?

[Tancred]

The Web was born at CERN in 1990, as a specific, visual protocol

The first web browser I used was text-only, called 'www', running on a Sun box. Was the visual component really there initially with the hyperlinks?

Re:Was it visual?

[c0d3g33k]

MicroVAX for me. As I recall, the visual component was there initially, if your monitor could display graphics. Since the WWW was originally concieved as a way for researchers to share research results over the internet, URLs could refer to non-textual information, including, but not limited to visual information. Though the original browser was text-only, you could browse to an image that would display on your graphics capable monitor. It just wasn't integrated into the page alongside the text. The integrated text+graphics browser you're thinking of became popular with the development of Mosaic, although there were a few other WWW clients that did a passable job of it before Mosaic came along. Mosaic worked best, though, so it was the game-changer.

Re:Was it visual?

[FrangoAssado]

Yes, for some meaning of "visual".

For example, vi (the editor) has this name because it originated as the "visual" mode of ex, a line-oriented (so non-visual) editor. So, even a rudimentary text-mode web browser would be considered "visual" when compared with FTP, for example.

Re:Was it visual?

[Tancred]

Good point. I didn't get my Indy until 1994, so I was just seeing the text over telnet until then. Was content type linked to a helper application to show the graphics? It wasn't until I saw Mosaic, with in-page graphics, that I recognized how much more powerful than gopher it was.

Re:Was it visual?

[tqk]

So, even a rudimentary text-mode web browser would be considered "visual" when compared with FTP, for example.

I think (it's been a while) "echo on" in ftp makes it go all visual.

And then some sons of ******* created abortions like CuteFTP, and the world went downhill from there.

Re:Was it visual?

[c0d3g33k]

No inline graphics - helper program in a separate window launched by custom mimetype configuration, as I recall.

This bodes well...

[OldSport]

...for Slashdot accepting my recent submissions of such articles as "The Sky is Blue" and "Hitting Yourself with a Hammer Hurts."

Re:This bodes well...

[tqk]

Correlation does not equal causation. You should hit yourself with a hammer under various circumstances, to narrow the possibilities.

I wonder why it is I so often find myself upon reading posts like yours thinking, "You first." You could perform that experiment yourself. So many advocates, yet so few volunteers.

"Put your money where your mouth is," I believe is how the saying goes.

"The AOL"

[stevegee58]

One of my favorite quotes from my mom.

not always...

[logicassasin]

2 cups of water + 2 cups of alcohol 4 cups of fluid. /end chemistry jackassery

Re:not always...

[Hentes]

It's true for every system satisfying the axioms of arithmetic.

Re:Facebook ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's zuckernet to the faithful.

s/z/f/ is how the /. unfaithful would spell it.

More ranting

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, cry me a river, bub. I'm afraid that ship has sailed.

Where I live, one of the major ISPs ran commercials proclaiming, "The original name for the Internet was 'the world-wide web.'" Yup, they're an ISP.

That's when I knew it was beyond redemption. Web, Internet, internet, interwebs, Facebook, it's all the same.

The web is not the internet

[fustakrakich]

Hypercard is.

I want to surf the World Wide Web

[FudRucker]

but the internet keeps getting in the way,

would that be considered cybersquatting?

BUT ...

[na1led]

I thought the Internet was a small black box sitting on top of Old Ben! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg

Re:BUT ...

[Master Moose]

One of the best shows ever!

Oh good.

[Hadlock]

Thanks for the tip.
 
Slashdot has really gone uphill since CmdrTaco left.

Oh yeah...what's next?

[dtjohnson]

...next thing you're going to say that 'cee-ment' and 'concrete' aren't the same thing.

Re:Oh yeah...what's next?

[kermidge]

Unless you're going to build something out of concrete, no, there's no distinction. Otherwise one suits the cement to the application, say when building a boat for salt-water cruising.

Re:Oh yeah...what's next?

[lennier]

Unless you're going to build something out of concrete, no, there's no distinction.

You're sure about that? Around here, you wouldn't even make a driveway out of pure cement, but you would make one out of concrete, ie, a concretion of fairly large stones (about an inch across) held together with cement.

But just pour a bag of cement and water onto the ground? It wouldn't have a lot of strength in it, and would be fairly thin and brittle, I think. Maybe okay for some kind of rough outer coating of a house, but you need the chunkiness of the stones to make it strong enough to walk on.

I'm not even a builder and I know that.

Re:Oh yeah...what's next?

[kermidge]

I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

What I wrote (or though I wrote) was that it's fine to _say_ that there's no distinction - unless one intends to do something in the real world, in which case the distinction is crucial.

I've done enough pads, slabs, driveways, walls and a few domes to understand the difference; nothing lately, though.

Last project worked on was a 55' monocoque ketch-rigged cruising boat, flush deck, center cockpit, 38'4'' LWL done in ferro-cement (it's been called that since Moses was a pup, but it uses mixed-grade fines as aggregate, often with fly-ash added, and back forty years ago often used now-deprecated Type II or IV Portland from the American schedule. With a two-week steam cure @140F works pretty well, btw.)

Soooo....

[hackula]

They are still basically the same thing and can be used interchangeably, correct? BTW, you forgot to say "Get off my lawn!"

Re:Soooo....

[RobertLTux]

the difference between The Web and The Internet

with The Web if you have a new computer (or one that was just reloaded because a virus ate Windows AGAIN) you
start surfing around and spend the next 5 days trying to get all that "stuff" back on your computer (and have to babysit the installers to make sure you don't load any "extra" programs).

with The Internet you grab your key with Ninite on it (you already picked out your list of programs) or hit ninite.com and make your picks and then run a program and THE POWER OF THE NETWORK allows you to worry about other things while all your programs are loaded (and nothing else is).

TL,DR
The Web has you waiting The Internet has you working

Re:I've come to bless you all with information

[metalgamer84]

Yes, for nerds apparently.

Anality

[formfeed]

Slowly over time, being a technical person has became from a socially award activity to something more socially acceptable, and well recognized. We need stories like this to increase or "Anality" towards the general public, because we just can't go along being socially accepted.

Some of it is needed however. Too much "anality" and you become a dweeb again, too little and you lose your expert status.
The public expects some level of nitpickery, anal irrelevance, incomprehensible babble, and irrelevant findings for you to continue your status as egghead.

Re:Anality

[jellomizer]

But if you are truly and expert, you will do incomprehensible babble from time to time, we don't need stories to try to make us go further.

People that don't know that...

[gmuslera]

... should be aware that the botnet their PC is part sent their personal data using internet but not their browsers.

And another thing...

[Octorian]

Remember folks, thanks to everyone being taught MS-DOS in the 80's and early 90's, all web addresses are pronounced:

Aitch Tee Tee Pee, Colon, Backslash, Backslash...

Obligatory xkcd

Re:And another thing...

[markhahn]

hah. and since we're in a pedantic mood, they're actually *forward* slashes.

Re:And another thing...

[kermidge]

Look at a manual typewriter. (I learned to type on them. One of the classroom machines was made in 1899.) The slash was around a long time before the backslash.

Feel better now?

[DroolArt]

Glad you got that off your chest; we sure didn't know that around here. And people think Nerds are unapproachable, wonder why...

Short easy names for things win.

[jonadab]

> And, just like how England is in the United Kingdom,
> but the United Kingdom isn't England

I suppose too that The United States of America is in the Americas but the United States thereof is not the same thing as America? And we dursn't call it just "the States" either because that's ambiguous because there might be other countries with the word "States" in their name at some point? Shall we stop calling China just "China" and start spelling out "The People's Democratic Socialist Republic of Maoist China" or whatever it's called in the formal diplomatic papers, every single time we refer to it, and similarly for the other one across the strait? And we should say "The Republic of the Netherlands" instead of Holland?

Phooey. Life's too short, and all that gratuitous verbiage takes too long to say every single time. I'm going to keep on calling them England and America and China and Taiwan. Every single person on the planet knows exactly which country I mean, *including* the sadly misguided people who insist I should call them by their ridiculously long official names all the time. Stuff that.

It's a little different with the web, because "the web" doesn't actually take longer to say than "the internet" or even just "the net". So, okay, we can call it "the web". I can live with that one.

Re:Short easy names for things win.

[Tom Goodale]

> I suppose too that The United States of America is in the Americas but the United States thereof is not the same thing as America?
> And we dursn't call it just "the States" either because that's ambiguous because there might be other countries with the word "States"
> in their name at some point?

No "might be" about it. You are bordered by "The United Mexican States," which is definitely also in the Americas.

Re:Short easy names for things win.

[Anonymous Coward]

You seriously missed the point. "England" is NOT a short name for "United Kingdom". That's sort of like thinking that a good short name for "United States of America" would be "Kansas".

Re:Short easy names for things win.

[Anonymous Coward]

unfortunately your parallels fail at "still calling it (the UK) England" Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also part of the UK. so calling the UK "England" is like calling the USA "Florida"

Re:Short easy names for things win.

[jonadab]

> "England" is NOT a short name for "United Kingdom"

Maybe in England it's not, but I can count on my fingers the number of times in my whole life that I've ever heard an American call it "the United Kingdom". We almost always call it England. What *else* would we call it? We've been calling it England ever since way back when we were considered to be part of England ourselves. England is easier to spell than Britian (I made a spelling mistake there on purpose, for effect; then I realized that I'd inadvertently made a second one), and until the internet came along virtually nobody over here had even *heard* of the "United Kingdom".

Re:Short easy names for things win.

[jonadab]

> Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also part of the UK

Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are part of England.

If we meant the province we'd say "England proper" to clarify, but unless you're actually *in* England there's almost never any reason to refer specifically to England proper. How often do people from England talk specifically about the (American) Midwest or the (American) South? It's like that. We don't very often need a word for just the southeastern portion of your country.

> so calling the UK "England" is like calling the USA "Florida"

It's a lot more like calling the USA "America" or the entire Russian Federation (or, during the cold war, the whole USSR) "Russia". Which everybody does. It's the normal single-word name for the nation and has been for hundreds of years.

Re:Short easy names for things win.

[Fr33z0r]

And we dursn't call it just "the States" either because that's ambiguous because there might be other countries with the word "States" in their name at some point?

Pure pedantry, calling the UK "England" isn't like calling the US "The States," it's more akin to referring to the whole of the USA as "Delaware."

Shall we stop calling China just "China" and start spelling out "The People's Democratic Socialist Republic of Maoist China" or whatever it's called in the formal diplomatic papers, every single time we refer to it, and similarly for the other one across the strait?

What you're talking about when talking about UK/England isn't about different names for the same things, it's about incorrectly using the same word to describe different things. Like calling Europe "Belgium."

And we should say "The Republic of the Netherlands" instead of Holland?

It depends on whether you're referring to the Netherlands or Holland, the Netherlands is a country, Holland is a province in that country.

Phooey. Life's too short, and all that gratuitous verbiage takes too long to say every single time.

Not gratuitous verbiage, accurate nomenclature.

I'm going to keep on calling them England and America and China and Taiwan. Every single person on the planet knows exactly which country I mean, *including* the sadly misguided people who insist I should call them by their ridiculously long official names all the time. Stuff that.

No, when you refer to one country by one of its constituent nation's names, you are wrong, and people will fail to understand you. Also, FYI "The UK" is a shorter name than "England."

Re:Short easy names for things win.

[jonadab]

I realize you may find this shocking, but it turns out the Wikipedia article on England is frequently edited by people from England, of all places. Weird, but true.

Marketing asks...

[mikecase]

...but which one's the cloud?

Re:Marketing asks...

[Opportunist]

I tend to tell marketing that it's an invention by Germans and actually a misunderstanding. Cloud is spelled "klaut" in German, and it means "he/she/it filches".

If they still don't get it, it's time for a presentation on basic Internet security.

News for nerds, stuff that matters.

[McDrewbs]

This "story" sounds like it began from this scenario.
http://xkcd.com/386/

ugh...

[logicassasin]

this should have read:

"2 cups of water + 2 cups of alcohol does not equal 4 cups of fluid. /end chemistry jackassery"

Re:ugh...

[AliasMarlowe]

this should have read:

"2 cups of water + 2 cups of alcohol does not equal 4 cups of fluid. /end chemistry jackassery"

Indeed it does not. If you add 2 cups of water to 2 cups of ethanol you get almost 4.1 cups of fluid due to the excess volume of mixing. The result is fractionally greater if thermal expansion due to released enthalpy of mixing is included.

Pardon my deficiency in jackassery where physical chemistry is concerned.

Re:ugh...

[logicassasin]

Indeed it does not. If you add 2 cups of water to 2 cups of ethanol you get almost 4.1 cups of fluid due to the excess volume of mixing. The result is fractionally greater if thermal expansion due to released enthalpy of mixing is included.

Pardon my deficiency in jackassery where physical chemistry is concerned.

the inverse of that would be 2 cups of water added to 2 cups of isopropyl alcohol will give you less than 4 cups due to the liquids dissolving in one another.

Re:ugh...

[fatphil]

> If you add 2 cups of water to 2 cups of ethanol you get almost 4.1 cups of fluid due to the excess volume of mixing.

The wiki image correctly shows a negative excess volume of the mixture. There's no expansion, quite the opposite - you'll get 3.84 cups of fluid.

Re:ugh...

[93 Escort Wagon]

Why would anyone want to water down two perfectly good cups of ethanol?

Re:ugh...

[moortak]

Perhaps they are too close to an open flame.

Re:ugh...

[EvilBudMan]

People as smart as you are the ones that got us in the Vietnam War.

Re:ugh...

[chrismcb]

Indeed it does not. If you add 2 cups of water to 2 cups of ethanol you get almost 4.1 cups of fluid

I thought we went over this a few days ago. 2 cups of water + 2 cups of ethanol = 4 cups of fluid.
On the other hand 2.0 cups of water + 2.0 cups of ethanol = 4.1 cups of fluid.

Re:ugh...

[angel'o'sphere]

Ethanol and water are dissolving into each other.
Ethanol has very big molecules, imagine it as billiard balls, water is very smal, imagine it as ping pong balls. If you mix the two, the small balls are filling lots of gaps between the big ones.
2 cups of water + 2 cups of ethanol is less than 4 cups of liquid. You can easy test that at home, because the difference is HUGHE.

This will explain it all

[trevc]

The IT Crowd - Series 3 - Episode 4: The Internet http://youtu.be/iDbyYGrswtg

W3C is not the Web, either

[DragonWriter]

But those services don't follow the W3C standards, so strictly speaking they are not web.

Since the web existed before the W3C was created to develop and promote standards for the web, the fact that services don't follow W3C standards can't mean they aren't part of the web. It might mean that they aren't part of the "open web" (though if they follow open standards that don't happen to be W3C standards, even that's dubious.)

Cool story, bro.

[Mike Buddha]

Tell it again.

Err, yes, we know

[wonkey_monkey]

The Web Is Not the Internet

Did someone say it is?

Re:Err, yes, we know

[coldsalmon]

I have never heard anyone say that the web is the internet, or use "web" to mean "internet." Actually, I very rarely hear anybody use the term "web" anymore in this context; everyone says "internet." I suppose it's true that oranges are not cats, bats are not telephones, and the World Bank is the the Eurozone, but nobody is claiming any of those things either and we don't need articles about the distinctions. Perhaps the author conflated the two concepts for a long time and assumed that everyone else had done the same. The author probably thinks that he is doing a service to his readers, but in reality, everyone else already knows that the web and the internet are different. That is, everyone except the person who submitted this to Slashdot.

While we're at it, this is a terribly-written sentence and its author should be ashamed of himself: "Most of the time they can be used synonymously and no one will care, but if you're talking about history or technical stuff and you want to be accurate or a know-it-all or beat a computer at Jeopardy, you should know the difference."

Re:O...

[Opportunist]

Doubt it. They'll get all interested and finally ask the one question that this whole rant is about:

"Wait, what? England and the UK aren't the same thing?"

Thanks for that useless info

[omems]

Here's a useless comment to go with a useless story.

Re:the firehose

[Opportunist]

So even in this very useless thread I found something worthy of being bookmarked.

Ridiculous Hair Splitting

[jordanslater]

What information can you find on the internet that is NOT on the web? Im sure there is a very small percentage, the significance of which is arguable. Why bring this up even???

Comparing it to England not being the united kingdom argument??? WHY BOTHER??? People dont we have better things to spend our time thinking about? What is the relevance?? What useful life changing information did we acquire from this 10 minutes i'll never get back making this post???

-crim

Now way, mates! We are just background noise!

[aglider]

Internet is the WWW and vice versa. It's a fact and it's a matter of statistics.
The fact that 0.001% (at best) of mankind knows the difference among DNS, IP, TCP, HTTP and HTML is irrelevant to the whole world.
It's just one thousandth or, according to some source, just 2.6M persons. It's just background noise!
Say it with me thrice: "Internet is the WW" ...

Re:Now way, mates! We are just background noise!

[idontgno]

"Correct" is not a popularity contest.

You know, I really did like the Internet a lot better before Eternal September.

Re:I was told it was GNU/Internet.

[Opportunist]

Sure it does! Hell, seriously, TV shows? People really abuse Usenet to download TV shows? That's what bandwidth on Usenet servers is wasted on today? Now everything makes a lot more sense, ya know? I mean, connections get faster and faster but it takes me longer and longer to download my porn.

If you point out the difference between terms

[ThorGod]

If you point out the difference between these two terms in everyday speech, then you are part of the problem.

I'm not talking about IT professionals talking to other IT professionals. I'm talking about people talking to other people. I long ago gave up correcting the term "the internet is down", and you should, too. If you can figure out what people are referring to without correcting them, you will go farther in this world than by being an "always correct" dick.

Re:If you point out the difference between terms

[Todd Knarr]

Well then, if "the internet is down", I suppose I should go check on the routers and if they're all running fine and packets are flowing I can dismiss your complaint, because "the internet" is up and running fine. Even the HTTP and HTTPS protocols are working fine, at least from the Unix servers which're allowed unfiltered outbound access to those protocols to make it easier to retrieve updates and communicate with remote services via SOAP etc..

Of course the Web proxy/filter box is dead, which means your Web browser won't be able to do anything. But you asked about our Internet connectivity, not Web connectivity, and since you're so adamant that it's the Internet that's down and it's provably not it must be something you're doing wrong. I'm going to close your ticket, I've got a ton of complaints that people's desktop Web browsing isn't working and I really need to tend to that. Everything except the Web seems to be working fine, so it's probably the Web filter malfing again.

Yes, I know exactly what I'm being. And you deserve it. You go telling your mechanic he needs to stop correcting you about the difference between a tire and a suspension and go fix your suspension so the car handles right again, not point at the flat tire and tell you you need to go to the tire shop and get a new tire. See what kind of reaction you get from him. I'll be over here with the popcorn.

Re:If you point out the difference between terms

[Crag]

I know what you mean, but I object. If I say something ignorant I want someone who knows more about the subject to correct me.

If I didn't know the difference between a transmission and a differential, and I incorrectly referred to one as the other, I would want to be corrected. If I didn't know the difference between Africa the continent and the countries it contains, and made some broad over-generalization about conditions in Africa, I would want someone to set me straight. I can't give an example about whatever stuff I am ignorant about because I don't know them well enough to make examples out of them.

Apparently most people want to live in ignorance and admittedly people can live in ignorance and be functional members of society, but isn't it better to encourage each other to be better informed and to use our languages more accurately and precisely (and to know the difference)? Nothing is lost by knowing more. It's not good to be a dick about it, but we can educate each other without being dicks.

Wait... what? It's Cyberspace!

[DarthVain]

I thought we were all in Cyberspace, and the Blogosphere...

Either way we all know its tubes all the way down anyway...

Re:the firehose

[butalearner]

Are you sure it's message is entirely correct?

Wrong!

[DarthVain]

Everybody knows it's the Information Super Highway and that it all exists within Cyberspace!

Re:Wrong!

[93 Escort Wagon]

And before that it all existed in the giant brain of Al Gore, Inventor of Everything.

In other Slashdot news....

[gosand]

Your computer case is not called "the hard drive" or the "cpu", although that's what most people refer to them as.... and if you are running out of disk space, you don't need more "memory".

Re:Facebook ...

[X0563511]

Most of us start a sentence with a capital letter. Sure, he was foolish to put body text into the subject, but once you wrap your head around that and reassemble the sentence, you'll see that his capitalization is correct.

So this whole England vs. the UK thing ...

[oneiros27]

Which one's the country?

England? Great Britain? The United Kingdom?

Yes, I know what the difference in territory is between them, but which one of those is officially a 'country'?. I've tried asking folks from the UK, and it stumps them, but we have noticed different competitions between countries treat it differently, which we think rules out Great Britain, but we're still not sure if it's England or the UK:

Eurovision : U.K.
Olympics : U.K.
World Cup : England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales
Rugby World Cup : England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland (and if I understand correctly, this is Northern Ireland + the Republic of Ireland)

Re:So this whole England vs. the UK thing ...

[jaymzter]

Off the top of my head with no assistance from that other wiki, I believe it is

England: Specifically England
Great Britain: The island of Great Britain (non-inclusive of surrounding isles)
United Kingdom: Refers to the union of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Island

I've discussed this with an Englishman as well and he also seemed somewhat long winded and confused.

Re:So this whole England vs. the UK thing ...

[Lemmy Caution]

Yet Scotland has its own parliament and a national football (soccer) team. Scotland is generally considered a country that is part of the United Kingdom.

Not one to cite wikipedia as a source, but it treats the constituent nations of the United Kingdom as countries that are all part of the same state, which is also a country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom.

Maybe they're like intestinal fauna.

Re:So this whole England vs. the UK thing ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which one's the country?

England? Great Britain? The United Kingdom?

Yes, I know what the difference in territory is between them, but which one of those is officially a 'country'?. I've tried asking folks from the UK, and it stumps them, but we have noticed different competitions between countries treat it differently, which we think rules out Great Britain, but we're still not sure if it's England or the UK:

Eurovision : U.K.
Olympics : U.K.
World Cup : England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales
Rugby World Cup : England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland (and if I understand correctly, this is Northern Ireland + the Republic of Ireland)

Actually, for the olympics it is Great Britain. You are correct about rugby - the Irish team is from both countries and they even sing 2 anthems at the start of the match.

England is a country. Scotland is a country. Wales is a country. Northern Ireland is a country. Heres where it gets interesting.

Great Britain = Scotland + England + Wales. Scotland has its own legal, education and healthcare systems plus has different church systems. England & Wales share the same systems.

UK = Great Britain + Northern Ireland.

However, you ask people from the UK what they are and you will get very differnt answers. They may be [Scottish/English/Welsh/Northern Irish*] or British.

What isnt right (and what /.ers do regularly and dont seem to care, which is odd for a group who will debate the smallest detail of copyright law for hours) is to call the UK "England". Its as wrong as calling the USA "California". Also, calling someone from Scotland "English" (or vice versa) is wrong. You wouldnt call someone from Texas a "Californian".

*or Irish. See the clusterfuck that is Northern Irish politics.

Re:Facebook ...

[History's Coming To]

Shush, don't give them ideas. Facebook has turned out to be an invaluable solution to the Eternal September, just don't have an account and 90% of interweb banality is kept safely out of your way.

. . .and no one will care.

[PeanutButterBreath]

Most of the time they can be used synonymously and no one will care. . .

'nough said.

Slashdot keeps astounding.

[Arancaytar]

With informative and educational headlines.

Wait for tomorrow's segment on how cupholders are actually CD trays.

Re:O...

[cuncator]

Just point them to this YouTube video which seems to a decent job of explaining the intricacies of what consists/consisted of The Crown, British Isles, Commonwealth, et al. And the bus stop people can even watch it on their smarmy^Wsmartypants phones.

Language and the Lowest Common Denominator...

[tokencode]

What the author neglects to realize is that language evolves based on how the majority of people use specific words. If 99.9% of the population believes the web and the internet are one and the same, then that becomes the defacto definition of the word even if it is not technically correct.

Re:Language and the Lowest Common Denominator...

[idontgno]

"defacto" is not a word. Although if people repeat that glaring blunder often enough, it probably will become one. And then dictionaries will have to add an etymology pointing to the correct phrase, and explaining how it's derived from the exact same phrase in a dead language, and at that point all the cool kids' eyes will glaze over and they'll turn back to updating their Facebook walls with their latest drinking binge escapades.

So, yeah, sadly, in practice, you're right. At least in linguistic evolution, popularity drives repetition and repetition drives mutation. And with the advent of "any moron can publish" (Thank you, Web 2.0), it'll be a power-dive for the muddy bottom. "Lowest common denominator" has become the way of all the world, although most of the dolts involved in the process probably don't even understand what that originally meant.

"And, just like how"

[kfsone]

getting the [grammar] wrong means you can inadvertently sound like a dummy.

You are ALL wrong...

[fahrbot-bot]

It's the Interweb and it's made up of a series of tubes. (and you call yourselves "geeks" - geesh)

internet happened when tcp/ip hit arpanet.

[markhahn]

usenet was a store-and-forward, intermittently-connected hub-and-spoke hack, not really a net. IP, DNS and TCP marked the real beginnings of internet as internet.

A Comma is Not a Semicolon

[dcollins]

"The Web was born at CERN in 1990, as a specific, visual protocol on the Internet, the global network of computers that began two decades earlier."

Also: a comma is not a semicolon.

garbage

[tracius01]

this article is garbage.

Ridiculous.

[MaWeiTao]

This reminds me of the asshole I came across yesterday at Home Depot. I had a question about whether or not dimmable LED bulbs would work with 3-way lamps. He starts on this thing about 3-way switches just so he could make a big deal about correcting me. What I meant, he reminds me thrice over the course of our conversation, was 3-state switches. If I had done a better job of thinking on my feet I would have asked him to walk with me to the lighting department and see if all that packaging used my term or his precious little electrician's in-crowd term. He may have been technically correct, but for the vast majority of the population, Wikipedia included, I was correct.

This is the same nonsense. For most people web and internet mean the same thing. If there is any difference at all it's semantics. All those distinctions matter within spheres of expertise. Highlighting those distinctions to outsiders stinks of arrogance; of a desire to aggrandize oneself. "I'm an expert and you're not."

It's obnoxious. What term I use is irrelevant as long as most people understand me. How many terms has this guy botched? Perhaps someone should call him out on all that.

Usage changes language.

[westlake]

The AOL client of the nineties shoved all the technical complexities of the Internet behind a single easy-to-use graphical interface that encouraged tens of millions of people to go online.

The "Internet Suite" of apps --- a half dozen or more --- disappears. The geek may cling to his stand-alone clients for FTP, USENET and the rest, but the masses move on.

The growing sophistication and capabilities of the web browser simply accelerates the process.

Re:Usage changes language.

[idontgno]

The masses are irrelevant. They always were. Originally, they were excluded because they were irrelevant.

Unfortunately, their irrelevance is being overriden by their marketability now... the bleating sheep have no individual value, but their fleece and their flesh are quite valuable on the commodity market. And there are so damn many of them. So the range is fenced, and roads laid, and pens built, and soon the whole damn Internet is a boring endless feedlot.

Ironic this made a front page story

[MaraDNS]

It's ironic this is a front page story, because a few months ago I got in a pointless flame war over here at Slashdot over this very point (when, after going to a lot of effort to make a useful comparison of DNS servers, some pedant got upset that I used an analogy treating the Internet like the World Wide Web):

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2620802&cid=38696276

On that note...

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Kleenex is facial tissue, but not all facial tissue is Kleenex.

Get ejumacated!

You were correcting someone?

[s.petry]

Maybe you should RTFA since you are wrong on many issues.

and your web-based e-mail client is usually an IMAP4 front-end supported by a database back-end... usually SQL or some variant of it (mssql for hotmail, mysql for yahoo, and I'm reasonably sure that gmail, while it used mysql in the past, is now using a home-grown nosql variant

You were correct with SMTP, but the rest seems to be a candidate for buzz word bingo more than being technically accurate. Web Based mail has no requirement for IMAP and a database for Web Mail is something a user would never see. Since you used "usually" instead of always I'll cut you some slack, but you should really investigate before writing "how things work" statements.

Every cloud-based "application" is also supported by a database back-end.

Not true. While it is true for some vendors products "every" would mean "all", and the majority do not have any database requirements.

You also have DNS, without which you can't get into the web-based frontpage in the first place,

Wrong! You can still get anywhere you want if you know the address for the host. DNS is not a requirement, it just make things easier to find since humans remember names much better than number sets.

and if we're going to start talking about low-level stuff like that you almost certainly go through a DHCP server and/or a RADIUS server before you are even able to do the DNS request.

Wrong again! Servers do not use DHCP or RADIUS to get addresses a vast majority of the time. Claiming "almost certainly" is a crock, it would be more like "almost never" since best practices for security tell you not to use any type of address request service. Clients often use those services since the amount of risk in using said services are seen as acceptable. If all you do is clients, well, don't claim to know how things work outside of that small world.

The average user may not be aware that the technologies exists, and they almost certainly don't care, but the Internet as it's known today can't exist without them.

Protocols run the internet, not the services you are pointing at. If SMTP did not exist another service could run in it's place, if HTTP did not exist, something else would. I'm not stating that services are bad, I'm telling you your statement is very wrong. The internet is just fine and exists perfectly without services. It becomes more usable with services.

That being said, trying to argue technical nomenclature with a non-technical person is a bit like holding back the tide with a thimble. At the end of the day, you're standing waist-deep in water with the fish nibbling at your toes, still trying to stop the water from reaching the shore.

That statement is the reason that I responded to your post! You appear to believe you know everything, and it is very obvious that you do not.

Re:You were correcting someone?

[realityimpaired]

Maybe you should RTFA since you are wrong on many issues.

You claim, in your signature, to be a senior systems engineer/architect... perhaps you'd best do some research into the architecture of the Internet before you spout off.

Briefly... when you turn on your computer, you send a DHCP request to your router. While it's possible to manually configure your system, we get to the router's configuration... *very* few ISPs in the world actually provide static configurations to their customers, because most of them have more customers than IP addresses. This brings us to the next step: your router will use some combination of DHCP and/or RADIUS to connect to your ISP. Most cable ISPs use straight DHCP coupled with a lease based on your MAC, while most DSL ISPs use RADIUS to authenticate before handing you over to DHCP. For FTTH installations, I've seen either configuration.

So by this point, you haven't even sent your first DNS request (or direct IP, since you seem hung up on the idea that the majority of Internet users could simply memorize the IP addresses of their favourite sites and don't need DNS to surf), and you've already communicated with at least one DHCP server, possibly more, and possibly a RADIUS server.

Now, it's true, usually, that you can simply communicate with most servers by putting the IP address in the address bar, but in all seriousness, do you believe that the majority of users have memorized the IP addresses of every site they visit? Unless you really want to be pedantic on the point, we can dismiss it as fucking ridiculous, because it is. Even if you want to be pedantic, and suggest that people actually can memorize that crap and not need a ghetto DNS in the form of writing down the IPs and keeping a piece of paper beside their computer, they still need to be able to access DNS so they can click on that picture of a cat that somebody posted on Facebook, and which is hosted on a server they've never heard of before.

You claim that servers don't use DHCP, but I'm guessing you've never set up a server in colocation. I haven't had an actual static IP in a datacenter in almost 10 years... most of them will ask you for the MAC address, and configure their DHCP to give you the appropriate information. My server's IP hasn't changed in years, but it's still DHCP.

Your contention that webmail doesn't require IMAP is true enough, but that doesn't change the fact that every webmail service I've ever used actually is using IMAP in the back-end, and that if you know the server names you can configure your mail client to connect through IMAP instead of using the webmail interface. There's no point in reinventing the wheel, and IMAP natively supports folders, filters, and search functions that most webmail relies on. You *could* implement something as feature rich without running IMAP, but it'd be a colossal waste of time. And then you reject the notion of there being a database because "the user will never see it". Bullshit. The user sees and uses it on a daily basis, they just don't realize they're using it, which was kind of the point I was making, if you'd actually read it.

You then complain that if SMTP and HTTP didn't exist, somebody would invent something else... that's a red herring. The protocols do exist, and people use them. If they didn't exist, there would still be a need to transfer that kind of data. You essentially make my argument for me, at this point, by proclaiming that http isn't necessary, by virtue of the fact that if http didn't exist then something else would. That's how the internet works, at the end of the day... *many* different ways to send information around from system to system.

I'm amused by the strawman you try to make at the end of your post, too, btw. I'm tempted to respond in kind, but honestly, what would it accomplish? The people reading this will draw their own conclusions. My point about "average" users stands, though... I deal with them on a daily basis at work, and I have seen their eyes glaze ove

Re:You were correcting someone?

[s.petry]

Repeating the same not true statement over and over will not make it true?

Briefly... when you turn on your computer, you send a DHCP request to your router.

WRONG! I don't give a shit what they teach at the MSCE classes or where ever you heard such a thing but my computer does not automatically configure DHCP. Even if I decided to use such a service (which as mentioned previously has security risks so most servers that are internet facing don't use these services) my OPERATING SYSTEM would use such a service, not my Computer.

Now, I guess you could become technical and say "But PXE" and my answer is still that it's not something done automatically unless I configure it to do so! In addition to a Computer not be doing this by default, and if I configured PXE my OS would not have an address because of a service in the BIOS. This is basic networking and system administration, nothing I would say is advanced.

You claim that servers don't use DHCP, but I'm guessing you've never set up a server in colocation. I haven't had an actual static IP in a datacenter in almost 10 years

I never made any such claim, I merely stated that you were wrong with your claim that it is always used. Goodie that "YOU" don't use static addresses, but don't claim that the rest of the world is the same as you.

.

You then complain that if SMTP and HTTP didn't exist, somebody would invent something else... that's a red herring.

It was not a complaint and not a red herring, unless you take things way out of context, it was a statement of fact. My point with SMTP and HTTP is that you are claiming they are required services for the internet to function. My answer is the same, no they are not required. No more required than IMAP or POP. Those are SERVICES and service are not REQUIRED for the internet. Protocols are the only requirement for the internet to function. Do you get the difference? I'm guessing not.. but hell I'll try one more time.

Incidentally... you *do* know that HTTP is just a wrapper for FTP, right? You open an HTTP connection and request a file, and the server uses FTP to send the file to you....

I'm sure that the use of "wrapper" can be defined somehow so that you can make this correct. The RFC and implementation of the standard makes this statement a complete fabrication, as with other information you have presented. The last time I checked HTTP does not call FTP to transfer files from server to client, it uses HTTP. Both services use open() , write() and port numbers, they just have to be the same thing right? Here is a clue: Simply download the source for httpd and ftpd and compare the code bases.

There was no straw man argument. I'm not the one telling people how things work and doing so using fabricated information or speculation. That was you doing that, and at least coming across as very egocentric while doing so.

Look, I'm sure you are intelligent about many things, this is just not your area of expertise. If you had not talked down to someone pretending to be an expert I would have never said a word. Replying to me and claiming further to be an expert, while not being said expert, because I corrected your mistakes does not help your case. Even if you toss out irrelevant BS about 802.11 wireless specs and a magnetron.

Re:You were correcting someone?

[realityimpaired]

WRONG! I don't give a shit what they teach at the MSCE classes or where ever you heard such a thing but my computer does not automatically configure DHCP. Even if I decided to use such a service (which as mentioned previously has security risks so most servers that are internet facing don't use these services) my OPERATING SYSTEM would use such a service, not my Computer.

Goodie that "YOU" don't use static addresses, but don't claim that the rest of the world is the same as you.

QFE. And to paraphrase... Goodie that "YOU" don't use DHCP, but don't claim that the rest of the world is the same as you.

And I would still be *extremely* surprised if you're not using some combination of DHCP and/or RADIUS as part of actually connecting to the Internet in the first place... if you have discovered an ISP that will allow its residential customers to configure their systems with a static IP address with no need to refresh configuration data from the centralized system, please do share it with the rest of us, as I'm sure there's some people here who would love to find out about it, for one reason or the other.

It was not a complaint and not a red herring, unless you take things way out of context, it was a statement of fact. My point with SMTP and HTTP is that you are claiming they are required services for the internet to function. My answer is the same, no they are not required. No more required than IMAP or POP. Those are SERVICES and service are not REQUIRED for the internet. Protocols are the only requirement for the internet to function. Do you get the difference? I'm guessing not.. but hell I'll try one more time

The Internet is a system to facilitate the exchange of information. Pray tell... if there's no information being exchanged, and no way to exchange said information, is there an Internet in the first place?

Also, the P in all of those acronyms you listed stands for Protocol. Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, HyperText Transfer Protocol, Internet Mail Access Protocol, and Post-Office Protocol. We'll throw in FTP, File Transfer Protocol, and for good measure, we'll also throw in BTP, though that's not what most users refer to it as. Perhaps, just maybe, their creators felt that they were protocols and not services. The service is the application listening on the open port you connect to (which is itself part of another protocol). These protocols are the language used to transfer information once you're connected.

I corrected your mistakes

You didn't, though. You squirrelled the discussion into something completely unrelated to the point I was making and made some false assertions, and when I called you on the bullshit, you proceeded to make ad hominem attacks. Incorrect ones, at that. I gave you an opportunity to avoid the ad hominem attacks, and in your next post, you continued with more of the same. My turn: you're either a troll or an idiot, and you're wasting my time.

Re:You were correcting someone?

[s.petry]

And I would still be *extremely* surprised if you're not using some combination of DHCP and/or RADIUS as part of actually connecting to the Internet in the first place... if you have discovered an ISP that will allow its residential customers to configure their systems with a static

You never restricted the internet to "residential customers", you gave a generalization and stated that everything works that way. It does not, and you are still not correct. You could at least have the decency of stating "I was incorrect, and what I meant to state was that with home users it works that way", but instead you present more untruths.

The Internet is a system to facilitate the exchange of information. Pray tell... if there's no information being exchanged, and no way to exchange said information, is there an Internet in the first place?

Previously you stated that the service protocols were required for the internet to function. Such as when you stated that the internet would not work without DNS. I'm not going to re-quote your statement, you can read up. Are you now agreeing with the point I made earlier that Services themselves are not required, but they make the internet usable?

Also, the P in all of those acronyms you listed stands for Protocol. Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, HyperText Transfer Protocol, Internet Mail Access Protocol, and Post-Office Protocol. We'll throw in FTP, File Transfer

Do you want points for pointing out obvious information? Service protocols have dependencies on Network protocols. Network protocols are what make the internet function, not the services. Perhaps the confusion is my fault for not being specific enough, however in my defense I assumes someone with subject matter knowledge, are you are at least pretending to have, would know something this obvious.

You squirrelled the discussion into something completely unrelated to the point I was making

Wrong, I systematically went through every single item you stated that was FALSE. There was no "squirreling" and it was exactly related to what you originally posted in a nearly 1 to 1 fashion. If you really truly believe this my post was not related I'll ask that you call 911 and request an immediate hospitalization for mental illness. This would be delusional at a level which would be a concern for public safety.

you proceeded to make ad hominem attacks.

It is not an Ad hominem attack when someone corrects an untruth. I'd suggest that you take some remedial courses in Logic. Maybe you can even come back with the Latin term for doing just that. I am speculating that you will just use Google or Wiki because it's easier. Save the work since I know the term as well as its applications. As with the statement above I made regarding public safety, if you truly believe someone correcting an untruth is an attack of any kind (Ad hominem or other) I would suggest you seek immediate professional assistance for mental health.

I will no longer trying to discuss something with a person that refuses to admit an untruth even after it is pointed out, and continues to present false and irrelevant information trying to argue that their false information is really true. You are were not correct, you did not tell the truth, the end. Have a nice day!

ps. I mean no insult or offense in requesting you seek medical assistance. Most mental illnesses with symptoms of delusion are treatable, but you have to seek help to get treatment.

Re:You were correcting someone?

[angel'o'sphere]

Well,
your argumentation is not far off, your partner in your conversation is very nitpicking (as you are as well) however:
Incidentally... you *do* know that HTTP is just a wrapper for FTP, right? You open an HTTP connection and request a file, and the server uses FTP to send the file to you....

This is just plain wrong.

What do you think why File Transfer Protocol has that name? Where as Hyper Text Transfer Protocol has another name?

The two things have noting to do with each other. I suggest to take the time to learn what "telnet" is and go and connect with telnet to a FTP server and querry the server for some stuff, then do the same with a web/http server. And yes, for that you have to read on wikipedia which commands both servers speak and how they answer you :D

Re:You were correcting someone?

[angel'o'sphere]

Sorry to interrupt.

But you clearly dont understand the difference between a service and a protocol.

Re:You were correcting someone?

[Fr33z0r]

And then you reject the notion of there being a database because "the user will never see it". Bullshit. The user sees and uses it on a daily basis, they just don't realize they're using it, which was kind of the point I was making, if you'd actually read it.

To be fair, databases aren't (or at least *shouldn't* be - I'm looking at you, Team Meat) an "Internet" technology, other systems connect into them, sure, but this should stop once you get outside the LAN.

Incidentally... you *do* know that HTTP is just a wrapper for FTP, right? You open an HTTP connection and request a file, and the server uses FTP to send the file to you....

Now this right here is what is commonly referred to as "absolute nonsense." FTP and HTTP are completely distinct protocols.

(But other than that you did pretty well :)

Re:And while we're at it...

[dzfoo]

Also, quit saying "preventative"! There is no such word. You take preventive measures to prevent an event from happening.

If you were to preventate, then you could take preventative measures. However there is no such verb, is there?

Re:And while we're at it...

[RenderSeven]

Riiight, so next you'll complain that preventativisionalismistic is incorrectual?

AOL, duh

[siliconwafer]

Of course the web is not the internet. AOL is the internet!

DB-9 versus DE-9

[thpdg]

Isn't this a lot like the DB-9 versus DE-9 debate?
You've probably never actually seen a DB-9 sub mini connector, yet that's what we call the connector commonly used for serial port connections. Except that's really a DE-9.
The tech world allowed them to become synonymous so long ago, that today no one can even recall that there is a difference.

It's badly wrong!

[aglider]

getting the distinction wrong means you can inadvertently sound like a dummy

If you make such a mistake, YOU ARE DEFINITELY A DUMMY!
Or you have some serious psycho-linguistic disorder!

Re:And while we're at it...

[dzfoo]

It is not incorrectual, it lacks correctivitudeness.

motherboard.com or vice.com?

[forevermore]

Not to nitpick but motherboard dot com is just a random ad/parking page. Not sure if /. editors or some automatic system gave the wrong attribution, but it's definitely misleading.

Rumors on the (private) internets

[tepples]

Yeah, but if we really want to pick nits, we should also point out that "internet" and "Internet" aren't synonyms.

And anyone who thinks the plural "internets" is merely a Bushism worthy of ridicule should look at RFC 1918, which describes addresses on private internets. Such a private internet may have a NAT, proxy, or air gap between it and the public Internet. Thus, President Bush's "rumors on the internets" could easily have described conscription rumors that are on both the public Internet and the Armed Forces' private internet.

Car Analogy

[similar_name]

I don't bother trying to make that distinction with anyone other than technical people. With anyone else it is futile.

Cars are the web, trucks are FTP, motorcycles are IM and the road is the internet.

The Web is in your Head...

[Lodragandraoidh]

All of these terms are conceptual sugar designed to hide all the messy details happening down below...

The amazing ballet that we view as the network of networks is really composed of computer applications running on machines of various types telling peripheral devices attached to them to read a byte here, and write a byte there in a format governed by convention (layers of communications protocols). This is basically the same process regardless if the machine is talking to the hard drive inside of it's case, or the ethernet card attached to an external network.

Seen from this level, the web or internet is really a construct inside of our heads - an agreed upon hallucination - to allow us mere mortals to 'understand' it and our relationship to it. All of the 3D game worlds, social media sites, chat rooms, text messages, email, and other such systems both that serve humans and that serve other machines, are at the most basic level message passing mechanisms - and at the lowest level in the network of backbones and carrier grade IP switches - maze solving mice, in the form of packets and the routing algorithms that control their progress through the network.

All the fun stuff, all the interesting stuff, and all the web stuff happens on the very end points inside the computers and most importantly inside of our minds translating all those messages composed of bits and bytes into something that is meaningful to humans. It allows us to share this hallucination with each other; that the bits I am sending you are a document, or the bits you are sending me are actions in a video game world. It is the stuff of magic to the uninitiated.

The whole concept of 'the web is not the internet' is irrelevant outside of a given context; therefore there is no definitive right or wrong about it.

Grist for a holy war? Yes. An informative article? No.

thank you

[mikematic]

thank you Tim...I really needed to know the difference between tcp and http...now i can confidently call myself an interweb expert

Re:And while we're at it...

[Beeftopia]

People, people - don't hate. Just conversate. And commentate.

Why this post on /.?

[zapyon]

I am pretty sure that 99.9999% of all slashdot users know this already. And I am also approximately 100% sure that many non-slashdot-readers will never learn (those, who are writing their texts "in Windows" (as opposed to a specific text processor) also "start the internet" by clicking the blue 'e'. So what's the point, really?

Re:Facebook ...

[Whiteox]

I think we all need more FWD: 's
Not that many traversing the cables nowadays :)

Re:Optimist/pessimist

[M8e]

Why would anyone want to ethanol up two perfectly good cups of water?

Re:And while we're at it...

[kaizendojo]

And that's the very reason I am addressing Americans; it's accepted in UK English. It's not in American English dictionaries.

The Ludovico Technique

[logicassasin]

From the novel/movie "A Clockwork Orange"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludovico_technique

Re:The Ludovico Technique

[Whiteox]

Hmm... There was also the Ludovica Military Academy in Budapest. I thought your comment was somehow related.

The UK, Great Britain and England

[andersh]

You really need to watch this video, it explains the difference between the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10

Re:The UK, Great Britain and England

[jonadab]

I know the official difference, but it's irrelevant. "England" is what practically *everybody* (well, everybody overseas from there) routinely calls the whole country. We've been doing so ever since we were officially part of England.

Re:Pedantic

[tqk]

Nobody has really cared about the distinction for the better part of the last decade.

Thank you for outing yourself as Part of The Problem. The next time httpd is fouling up, we'll know not to call on you.

Re:And while we're at it...

[lennier]

Also, quit saying "preventative"! There is no such word. You take preventive measures to prevent an event from happening.

I agree that "preventative" is not an adjective. But it could possibly be (and I believe in older usage, was) a noun - a preventative, a thing which prevents, analogous to a sedative which sedates, or a curative which cures.

But don't even get me started on "to administrate" or "to remediate". The well-brought-up gentleman or lady only ever administers or remedies, and certainly never "leverages" even if they find themself locked in the engine room of a steam zeppelin with a stockbroker and a pointy piece of well-tempered steel.