Not much more. The IPv6 header that 6to4 inserts is mostly just address bits, which your suggestion would also require, perhaps using RFC 2004 or loose source routing. Most of the remaining 8 bytes are equivalent to fields in the v4 header. Only the (optional) flow label is unique to IPv6 (for now, see the IPv4 flowlabel draft).
6to4 [...] requires a relay router to reach native ipv6 hosts.
As opposed to your proposal, which offers no method to reach native v6 hosts.
What it does have is compatibility with far more equipment.
Which equipment? 6to4 is already 'compatible' with the routers on the public v4 internet, by virtue of hiding the v6 stuff entirely. NAT devices have to be upgraded in either scheme, as do the hosts and the applications that run on them, to accommodate the new addressing scheme. And yes, your proposal does introduce a new addressing scheme, in which hosts without public v4 addresses will require multiple v4 addresses to identify them uniquely (just how many are needed depends on how many layers of NAT it's hiding behind). Your scheme may avoid the need to upgrade any links and routers between the host and it's NAT device, but ISATAP or 6over4 can do the same for IPv6.
The updates would be simpler as well.
Simpler how? By introducing a variable-length addressing scheme, you actually seem to be making things more complex.
I use a number of KDE applications on my XFCE desktop, so now I suppose I'm using 'KDE Applications' built on the KDE platform, but without the 'KDE Plasma Desktop'. If this rebranding is a sign of commitment to this kind of heterogeneous environment, then I welcome it, but I'm not sure whether this brings us anything that freedesktop.org didn't.
I really can't tell whether you're a crazy veggie or a crazy carnivore. Do you consider it impossible that there are people who, although they find meat to be tasty and nutritious, nevertheless consider eating sentient creatures to be morally dubious at best?
Look, if you already don't smoke indoors, you're half-way there. Why not give it up entirely - for YOU. You're the one who will save the money, not have to go outside in the middle of winter at 3 am to satisfy a craving that you really wish you could sleep through, not have your clothing smell, be able to taste your food better, etc.
And there's the unwanted advice he was on about. Perhaps you'd like some lifestyle tips off me as my way of saying thankyou for exposing me to some persuasive arguments that I'd never ever heard before?
I, on the other hand, am far enough to the left that I could possibly be considered to be a communist, and I agree with you. This simply isn't a left/right issue, it's a civil liberties issue.
As for second hand smoke in general, I half consider it to be assault.
Oh, come off it. It's this kind of self-righteous bullshit that makes it real difficult sometimes to have sympathy with genuine allergy sufferers. Because I really do have sympathy, in principle, for people who suffer from allergies. I'm happy to be considerate, if there's an asthmatic present I'll gladly stub it out or move away, and I'm happy to pay for inhalers and whatnot out of my taxes. But when the persecution of smokers gets going, I just get pissed off. Here in the UK, the government has recently crossed the line, to the point where I now feel that the civil liberties issues are now more pressing than the health aspect.
It's about time people realised that there are both smokers and non-smokers in the world, and a reasonable accommodation has to be reached between the two based on mutual respect and consideration for each other.
Oh, and I'm sorry, but your personal dislike of the smell can form no part of a sensible debate on the subject. If I didn't like the colour of your jacket it'd hardly be reasonable for me to suggest you go home and change so as not to offend my senses.
could be. but then you are saying you'd rather be european because you are healthier, not because healthcare is better. there is a difference and the confusion of the two is unfortunate.
I do appreciate the difference. My point is that (in the UK, at least, I can't speak for other countries) the NHS does invest heavily in preventative care, i.e. we are healthier precisely because our healthcare is better.
furthermore, I'm not sure what primary care doctor prevents you from smoking or getting fat.
An NHS GP will help you to quit smoking or lose weight, and the NHS also run public awareness campaigns, although I'll grant that the latter isn't primary care.
Many Americans (keep in mind, 85% have insurance and going to a primary care doctor isn't expensive compared to insurance or the taxes Europeans pay) already have great access to primary care doctors.
Taxes are taxes, you pay them regardless. NHS healthcare is still 100% free at the point of use, for 100% of the population. There is no financial incentive for patients to not seek treatment early.
Oh, and don't expect me to simply take your word for it that we pay more for our primary care than you, but my point here is that it wouldn't matter even if we did.
For example, at my work place, the low deductible plan has a 15 dollar copay for me to go to a primary care doctor and the high deductible plan pays 100% of the cost.
I have to say, the idea of depending on your employer for such things does not sit well with me. The low-paid and the unemployed seem likely to be put at a disadvantage by such a scheme. It also seems bizarre to link employment and healthcare in this manner; what has one got to do with the other?
and no, I'm not for doctors leaving people to die. that is just a stupid comment.
Yes, I apologize for that, it was a cheap shot. It's clear now that you were only objecting to one particular means of ensuring people aren't left to die
But what I'd rather see is if society actually wants to provide healthcare to the poor, then to share that very specific burden (a la Medicaid) rather than force 100% of the burden on hospitals.
Of course, that objection only makes sense within the context of a privatised healthcare system.
That's also a rather interesting 'if'. I would have thought that any reasonably compassionate society would want to provide healthcare to those that need it, and I see no reason why a typical American would be less compassionate than a typical European. We're all human, after all.
Sure, the old system maybe wasn't perfect but the idea of letting 100% of the burden fall on your local hospital and the idea that the emergency room is free just creates perverse incentives and can really put an unfair burden on hospitals that are open in lower income areas where offsetting business from the rest of the community isn't there.
What kind of perverse incentives did you have in mind? Driving hospitals away from poor areas? Because that would seem to disappear totally in a state system where the primary objective is healthcare, rather than profit.
In the UK, if you refuse to fund the healthcare system (via taxes) you go to prison. In the US, if you refuse to fund the healthcare system (via health insurance) you die. Why is the former theft and the latter not?
The "national socialists" who let private property and corporations continue to exist were at least as evil as the outright communists, and the half-capitalist Chinese today continue to oppress their own people.
Godwin's law strikes again.
Arrogant, all-powerful governments abuse and murder their own people.
Perhaps it's escaped your notice that the purpose of universal health care is to save lives, not take them.
I'm just finding random stats. Europeans only have their jaws on the floor because for some reason they believe they receive better health care.
Could be the higher life expectancy that makes us think that.
And keep in mind, health care is how you are treated once you are sick. If we corrected the the higher obesity and smoking rates in the US, I think the American medical system would look like a bunch of gods coming to work vs the care in the UK.
Ah, so that's where you're going wrong, lack of preventative health care. So that's what makes the NHS work so well - providing incentives to treat as early as possible rather than incentives to avoid treating at all.
I'm personally against socialized medicine or requirements for insurance. I'm also against the reagan era policy which says you have to treat people regardless if they can pay.
I guess you're in favour of doctors leaving people to die because they can't pay then?
Your employer doesn't offer a health plan?? Then they are selfish. ALL employers can offer health plans, they choose not to.
Ah, so you think it's the responsibility of all employers to offer healthcare rather then government. And this is better, how exactly?
So because less than 10% of the population don't have insurance, the other 90% will now have to pay for it. And of that 10%, a large portion CHOOSE not to have insurance even when it's offered. I know this from personal experience, two people I know do not have insurance even though their employer offers it. These are not low paying jobs, these are mid to upper middle class incomes who choose to purchase expensive toys rather than carry insurance on themselves.
I'm gonna speculate that these people are doing that because they're gambling that they could afford the treatment if ever they fell seriously ill. Seems you don't really give a shit about people who know they couldn't afford the treatment, but can't afford the insurance either.
This furthers drives the US economy down the shitter, just as Obama has been doing since he was elected.
I don't know if you've noticed, but the US is the only country in the developed world that doesn't (or didn't, rather) have universal health care, and none of the other developed countries have gone so far down the shitter that they're no longer considered developed. Let's ignore the fact that here in the UK we managed to build a more ambitious scheme than this one while still rebuilding from WWII, without going down the shitter. Also, let's just ignore for the minute that the US spends more per capita on healthcare while still having a relatively poor life expectancy. Sounds like a bit of government interference in this area might just help efficiency and lead to, of all things, economic growth, if that's your primary concern.
You follow the faulty British ' thinking' which gave them the fused plug.
Every appliance is fused according to rating and type of use, an additional fuse in the socked is not going to improve this protection in any way.
Except that were not talking about adding an additional fuse, we're talking about moving the fuse into the plug, for captive leads at least. Obviously, if the fuse in the appliance is rated equal or higher it offers no additional protection and you might as well remove it. If the plug fuse is higher you might as well reduce it to be the same as the one in the appliance and, again, remove the appliance fuse.
For detachable leads you may really need 2 fuses for complete safety. What if a 3A lead is connected to a 13A device? And, of course, what if a detachable lead develops a fault (perhaps being dropped in water) while not connected to anything at all?
The only ' use' the fused plug has is that it could theoretically prevent a fire caused by a partial short circuit in the power cord.
Theoretical because the mains socket is protected by a fuse or breaker anyway.
No, not theoretical. The single 32A breaker in my consumer unit will not protect even a 13A flex, and certainly not a 3A flex. And I'm not keen on needing a 32A flex on every single device in order for them to not burst into flames when they die.
Of course, you could argue that the British system is overcautious, and you could argue that most of it's benefits can also be had by using separate breakers on each socket (which I can see being probably more expensive), but stop pretending that there aren't any real safety benefits
Firstly, I imagine he was talking about electric kettles.
Secondly, your complaint about the efficiency of resistive heating doesn't ring true. Where is the wasted energy supposed to be going?
Still, I'm quite bored, so I thought I'd empirically test your assertions and have a race between my microwave and my kettle. Unsuprisingly, the kettle won hands down.
Kettle:
Nominal power: 2200W
Time to boil 0.5L of water: about 2 minutes
Actual power consumption: 2360W
Current draw: 9.7A
Power factor: 100%
Microwave:
Nominal power: 800W
Time to boil 0.5L of water: about 8 minutes
Actual power consumption: 1250W
Current draw: 6.7A
Power factor: 85%
Supply is 240V.
So, in other words, the kettle boiled in a quarter of the time and used less than half the energy (283kJ instead of 600kJ). If I start making numbers up and assume that the water started at 20C and finished at 90C, that would require 146kJ (plus whatever it takes to vapourise the steam), giving the kettle an efficiency of 52%, and the microwave a mere 24%. I suspect those numbers are a little on the low side, but you get the idea.
Of course, there are more powerful (and probably more efficient) microwaves available, but it does not seem plausible that any microwave could beat my distinctly average (by UK standards) kettle.
Sigh. Now you are just trying to weasel out of the argument by playing with semantics.
Given that we are trying to define 'the Web', I'd say semantics is entirely relevent.
A web page is on the web. A web page is part of the web. A mailbox is on the web. A mailbox is part of the web. A newsgroup is on the web. A newsgroup is part of the web.
A white line is on the road. A white line is part of the road. So far, so good. A car is on the road. A car is, however, not part of the road. Analogies like this just don't work.
In this context, "on" and "part of" are synonyms.
I read "on" as being synonymous with "accessible from". IOW, the Web, aside from being a valuable resource itself, also provides a convenient access point for other Internet resources.
Here's a quote:
The Web is a universe of resources. A resource is defined by [RFC2396] to be anything that has identity. Examples include documents, files, menu items, machines, and services, as well as people, organizations, and concepts.
Just because the Web consists of resources, that does not mean that all resources are part of the Web.
So the original complaint that it was not proper to refer to Mozilla as a "web suite" is without merit - even if you draw a distinction between "on the web" and "part of the web". Right?
By either your definition or mine, calling an email client a Web program would also suggest that the inbox it manages is a 'Web inbox'. It, after all, the inbox that has a URI, not the mail client. You could even go so far as to say that if I tried to sell my shoes on eBay, they would become 'Web shoes', which is clearly silly. However, the shoes would have a URI and therefore be part of the Web under your definition.
email functions quite happily without URIs.
So what? Something doesn't have to rely on URIs to be part of the web. If you point to a resource with a URI, you make it part of the web, whether the resource wants to be part of the web or not.
Given the high status of URIs on the Web, I feel that to be part of the Web a slightly less tentative connection to URIs is necessary.
I could put a bus journey to my house 'on the web' by inventing a new URI scheme that allows 'bus://my-house?via=the_chip_shop'.
Your URI scheme wouldn't be recognised by anybody but you though.
True.
Your mistake is thinking that "URI == part of the web" is the extreme part of your example. It's not. Defining the bus journey as a resource is the extreme part of of that example.
No, I knew perfectly well that devising a URI scheme for bus journeys was ludicrous. My point was that any object or concept could be placed on the Web with a suitable URI scheme. My 'shoes on eBay' example suggests that even new URI schemes may not be necessary. This, I fear, leads to an overly broad and not terribly useful definition of 'the Web'. I consider it more useful to say that the Web essentially ends more or less where the hypertext ends, i.e. the advert for the shoes is 'part of the Web' but the shoes themselves are merely 'on the Web'. An email message (even if it was composed with the aid of a mailto: URI) must still traverse a nontrivial system containing no hypertext, URIs or any other Web-like technology. Therefore, I do not consider either the message, or the system through which it passes to be part of the Web. Webmail services, naturally, are part of the Web. However, receiving email form a webmail user does not change the nature of my inbox (it's still private) and does not make it part of the Web.
We already have the term 'Internet' and I see no value in generalising the the term 'World Wide Web' to be synonymous with it. If ever this 'semantic Web' we keep hearing about comes info being I may change my viewpoint, but for now, a mailto: is still just an interface between the WWW and email.
'On the web' is not the same as 'part of the web', any more than 'on the TV' means 'part of the TV'. Arguably, mailto: URIs do put email 'on the web'. Still, email functions quite happily without URIs. I could put a bus journey to my house 'on the web' by inventing a new URI scheme that allows 'bus://my-house?via=the_chip_shop'. The wouldn't make the bus, my house or the chip shop part of the Web.
Slashdot Mirror
Not much more. The IPv6 header that 6to4 inserts is mostly just address bits, which your suggestion would also require, perhaps using RFC 2004 or loose source routing. Most of the remaining 8 bytes are equivalent to fields in the v4 header. Only the (optional) flow label is unique to IPv6 (for now, see the IPv4 flowlabel draft).
As opposed to your proposal, which offers no method to reach native v6 hosts.
Which equipment? 6to4 is already 'compatible' with the routers on the public v4 internet, by virtue of hiding the v6 stuff entirely. NAT devices have to be upgraded in either scheme, as do the hosts and the applications that run on them, to accommodate the new addressing scheme. And yes, your proposal does introduce a new addressing scheme, in which hosts without public v4 addresses will require multiple v4 addresses to identify them uniquely (just how many are needed depends on how many layers of NAT it's hiding behind). Your scheme may avoid the need to upgrade any links and routers between the host and it's NAT device, but ISATAP or 6over4 can do the same for IPv6.
Simpler how? By introducing a variable-length addressing scheme, you actually seem to be making things more complex.
I think you just reinvented 6to4
Erm, I think you'll find that the IP header is covered by the TCP/UDP/ICMP/whatever checksum in IPv6.
XFCE may not be quite as mainstream as KDE or GNOME, but it's hardly an experts-only desktop. And is Xubuntu not mainstream enough for you?
I use a number of KDE applications on my XFCE desktop, so now I suppose I'm using 'KDE Applications' built on the KDE platform, but without the 'KDE Plasma Desktop'. If this rebranding is a sign of commitment to this kind of heterogeneous environment, then I welcome it, but I'm not sure whether this brings us anything that freedesktop.org didn't.
Now, I'm not saying I'd be first in line to try it, but so long as no-one is forcing you to eat it, what's the problem?
I really can't tell whether you're a crazy veggie or a crazy carnivore. Do you consider it impossible that there are people who, although they find meat to be tasty and nutritious, nevertheless consider eating sentient creatures to be morally dubious at best?
We have these things, called detergents, also water which can be used to "clean" things. I know that's a novel concept for many smokers.
Yes, and fat people are lazy, Muslims are terrorists, Jews are greedy and black people are thieves.
[...] WE have the right not to have to smell you.
Bullshit. On what grounds, legal or moral, do you have the right not to smell me?
Look, if you already don't smoke indoors, you're half-way there. Why not give it up entirely - for YOU. You're the one who will save the money, not have to go outside in the middle of winter at 3 am to satisfy a craving that you really wish you could sleep through, not have your clothing smell, be able to taste your food better, etc.
And there's the unwanted advice he was on about. Perhaps you'd like some lifestyle tips off me as my way of saying thankyou for exposing me to some persuasive arguments that I'd never ever heard before?
I, on the other hand, am far enough to the left that I could possibly be considered to be a communist, and I agree with you. This simply isn't a left/right issue, it's a civil liberties issue.
As for second hand smoke in general, I half consider it to be assault.
Oh, come off it. It's this kind of self-righteous bullshit that makes it real difficult sometimes to have sympathy with genuine allergy sufferers. Because I really do have sympathy, in principle, for people who suffer from allergies. I'm happy to be considerate, if there's an asthmatic present I'll gladly stub it out or move away, and I'm happy to pay for inhalers and whatnot out of my taxes. But when the persecution of smokers gets going, I just get pissed off. Here in the UK, the government has recently crossed the line, to the point where I now feel that the civil liberties issues are now more pressing than the health aspect.
It's about time people realised that there are both smokers and non-smokers in the world, and a reasonable accommodation has to be reached between the two based on mutual respect and consideration for each other.
Oh, and I'm sorry, but your personal dislike of the smell can form no part of a sensible debate on the subject. If I didn't like the colour of your jacket it'd hardly be reasonable for me to suggest you go home and change so as not to offend my senses.
Well, if I ever bump into you you'd better remind me not to blow smoke directly into your face like I normally would.
could be. but then you are saying you'd rather be european because you are healthier, not because healthcare is better. there is a difference and the confusion of the two is unfortunate.
I do appreciate the difference. My point is that (in the UK, at least, I can't speak for other countries) the NHS does invest heavily in preventative care, i.e. we are healthier precisely because our healthcare is better.
furthermore, I'm not sure what primary care doctor prevents you from smoking or getting fat.
An NHS GP will help you to quit smoking or lose weight, and the NHS also run public awareness campaigns, although I'll grant that the latter isn't primary care.
Many Americans (keep in mind, 85% have insurance and going to a primary care doctor isn't expensive compared to insurance or the taxes Europeans pay) already have great access to primary care doctors.
Taxes are taxes, you pay them regardless. NHS healthcare is still 100% free at the point of use, for 100% of the population. There is no financial incentive for patients to not seek treatment early.
Oh, and don't expect me to simply take your word for it that we pay more for our primary care than you, but my point here is that it wouldn't matter even if we did.
For example, at my work place, the low deductible plan has a 15 dollar copay for me to go to a primary care doctor and the high deductible plan pays 100% of the cost.
I have to say, the idea of depending on your employer for such things does not sit well with me. The low-paid and the unemployed seem likely to be put at a disadvantage by such a scheme. It also seems bizarre to link employment and healthcare in this manner; what has one got to do with the other?
and no, I'm not for doctors leaving people to die. that is just a stupid comment.
Yes, I apologize for that, it was a cheap shot. It's clear now that you were only objecting to one particular means of ensuring people aren't left to die
But what I'd rather see is if society actually wants to provide healthcare to the poor, then to share that very specific burden (a la Medicaid) rather than force 100% of the burden on hospitals.
Of course, that objection only makes sense within the context of a privatised healthcare system.
That's also a rather interesting 'if'. I would have thought that any reasonably compassionate society would want to provide healthcare to those that need it, and I see no reason why a typical American would be less compassionate than a typical European. We're all human, after all.
Sure, the old system maybe wasn't perfect but the idea of letting 100% of the burden fall on your local hospital and the idea that the emergency room is free just creates perverse incentives and can really put an unfair burden on hospitals that are open in lower income areas where offsetting business from the rest of the community isn't there.
What kind of perverse incentives did you have in mind? Driving hospitals away from poor areas? Because that would seem to disappear totally in a state system where the primary objective is healthcare, rather than profit.
In the UK, if you refuse to fund the healthcare system (via taxes) you go to prison. In the US, if you refuse to fund the healthcare system (via health insurance) you die. Why is the former theft and the latter not?
The "national socialists" who let private property and corporations continue to exist were at least as evil as the outright communists, and the half-capitalist Chinese today continue to oppress their own people.
Godwin's law strikes again.
Arrogant, all-powerful governments abuse and murder their own people.
Perhaps it's escaped your notice that the purpose of universal health care is to save lives, not take them.
I'm just finding random stats. Europeans only have their jaws on the floor because for some reason they believe they receive better health care.
Could be the higher life expectancy that makes us think that.
And keep in mind, health care is how you are treated once you are sick. If we corrected the the higher obesity and smoking rates in the US, I think the American medical system would look like a bunch of gods coming to work vs the care in the UK.
Ah, so that's where you're going wrong, lack of preventative health care. So that's what makes the NHS work so well - providing incentives to treat as early as possible rather than incentives to avoid treating at all.
I'm personally against socialized medicine or requirements for insurance. I'm also against the reagan era policy which says you have to treat people regardless if they can pay.
I guess you're in favour of doctors leaving people to die because they can't pay then?
Your employer doesn't offer a health plan?? Then they are selfish. ALL employers can offer health plans, they choose not to.
Ah, so you think it's the responsibility of all employers to offer healthcare rather then government. And this is better, how exactly?
So because less than 10% of the population don't have insurance, the other 90% will now have to pay for it. And of that 10%, a large portion CHOOSE not to have insurance even when it's offered. I know this from personal experience, two people I know do not have insurance even though their employer offers it. These are not low paying jobs, these are mid to upper middle class incomes who choose to purchase expensive toys rather than carry insurance on themselves.
I'm gonna speculate that these people are doing that because they're gambling that they could afford the treatment if ever they fell seriously ill. Seems you don't really give a shit about people who know they couldn't afford the treatment, but can't afford the insurance either.
This furthers drives the US economy down the shitter, just as Obama has been doing since he was elected.
I don't know if you've noticed, but the US is the only country in the developed world that doesn't (or didn't, rather) have universal health care, and none of the other developed countries have gone so far down the shitter that they're no longer considered developed. Let's ignore the fact that here in the UK we managed to build a more ambitious scheme than this one while still rebuilding from WWII, without going down the shitter. Also, let's just ignore for the minute that the US spends more per capita on healthcare while still having a relatively poor life expectancy. Sounds like a bit of government interference in this area might just help efficiency and lead to, of all things, economic growth, if that's your primary concern.
You follow the faulty British ' thinking' which gave them the fused plug.
Every appliance is fused according to rating and type of use, an additional fuse in the socked is not going to improve this protection in any way.
Except that were not talking about adding an additional fuse, we're talking about moving the fuse into the plug, for captive leads at least. Obviously, if the fuse in the appliance is rated equal or higher it offers no additional protection and you might as well remove it. If the plug fuse is higher you might as well reduce it to be the same as the one in the appliance and, again, remove the appliance fuse.
For detachable leads you may really need 2 fuses for complete safety. What if a 3A lead is connected to a 13A device? And, of course, what if a detachable lead develops a fault (perhaps being dropped in water) while not connected to anything at all?
The only ' use' the fused plug has is that it could theoretically prevent a fire caused by a partial short circuit in the power cord.
Theoretical because the mains socket is protected by a fuse or breaker anyway.
No, not theoretical. The single 32A breaker in my consumer unit will not protect even a 13A flex, and certainly not a 3A flex. And I'm not keen on needing a 32A flex on every single device in order for them to not burst into flames when they die.
Of course, you could argue that the British system is overcautious, and you could argue that most of it's benefits can also be had by using separate breakers on each socket (which I can see being probably more expensive), but stop pretending that there aren't any real safety benefits
Firstly, I imagine he was talking about electric kettles.
Secondly, your complaint about the efficiency of resistive heating doesn't ring true. Where is the wasted energy supposed to be going?
Still, I'm quite bored, so I thought I'd empirically test your assertions and have a race between my microwave and my kettle. Unsuprisingly, the kettle won hands down.
Kettle:
Nominal power: 2200W
Time to boil 0.5L of water: about 2 minutes
Actual power consumption: 2360W
Current draw: 9.7A
Power factor: 100%
Microwave:
Nominal power: 800W
Time to boil 0.5L of water: about 8 minutes
Actual power consumption: 1250W
Current draw: 6.7A
Power factor: 85%
Supply is 240V.
So, in other words, the kettle boiled in a quarter of the time and used less than half the energy (283kJ instead of 600kJ). If I start making numbers up and assume that the water started at 20C and finished at 90C, that would require 146kJ (plus whatever it takes to vapourise the steam), giving the kettle an efficiency of 52%, and the microwave a mere 24%. I suspect those numbers are a little on the low side, but you get the idea.
Of course, there are more powerful (and probably more efficient) microwaves available, but it does not seem plausible that any microwave could beat my distinctly average (by UK standards) kettle.
It would not, but only because existing spyware is also literally spying.
Given that we are trying to define 'the Web', I'd say semantics is entirely relevent.
A white line is on the road. A white line is part of the road. So far, so good. A car is on the road. A car is, however, not part of the road. Analogies like this just don't work.
I read "on" as being synonymous with "accessible from". IOW, the Web, aside from being a valuable resource itself, also provides a convenient access point for other Internet resources.
Just because the Web consists of resources, that does not mean that all resources are part of the Web.
By either your definition or mine, calling an email client a Web program would also suggest that the inbox it manages is a 'Web inbox'. It, after all, the inbox that has a URI, not the mail client. You could even go so far as to say that if I tried to sell my shoes on eBay, they would become 'Web shoes', which is clearly silly. However, the shoes would have a URI and therefore be part of the Web under your definition.
Given the high status of URIs on the Web, I feel that to be part of the Web a slightly less tentative connection to URIs is necessary.
True.
No, I knew perfectly well that devising a URI scheme for bus journeys was ludicrous. My point was that any object or concept could be placed on the Web with a suitable URI scheme. My 'shoes on eBay' example suggests that even new URI schemes may not be necessary. This, I fear, leads to an overly broad and not terribly useful definition of 'the Web'. I consider it more useful to say that the Web essentially ends more or less where the hypertext ends, i.e. the advert for the shoes is 'part of the Web' but the shoes themselves are merely 'on the Web'. An email message (even if it was composed with the aid of a mailto: URI) must still traverse a nontrivial system containing no hypertext, URIs or any other Web-like technology. Therefore, I do not consider either the message, or the system through which it passes to be part of the Web. Webmail services, naturally, are part of the Web. However, receiving email form a webmail user does not change the nature of my inbox (it's still private) and does not make it part of the Web.
We already have the term 'Internet' and I see no value in generalising the the term 'World Wide Web' to be synonymous with it. If ever this 'semantic Web' we keep hearing about comes info being I may change my viewpoint, but for now, a mailto: is still just an interface between the WWW and email.
'On the web' is not the same as 'part of the web', any more than 'on the TV' means 'part of the TV'. Arguably, mailto: URIs do put email 'on the web'. Still, email functions quite happily without URIs. I could put a bus journey to my house 'on the web' by inventing a new URI scheme that allows 'bus://my-house?via=the_chip_shop'. The wouldn't make the bus, my house or the chip shop part of the Web.
I don't deny that URIs are part of the Web. That doesn't make the things they point to part of the Web (hint: email works just fine without URIs).