Reply With Quote
hey was the book that your dad "lent" you written in english or chinese?:
I am trying to re-piece together a book my dad lent me several years ago about the origins of the internet (until he responds to my text message with the le), but AT&T resisted this tech and held out for a while as evidenced by the quote above from their corp history page.1975-1976: Computerization of the network begins as AT&T installs the world’s first digital electronic toll switch, the 4ESS® , in Chicago. This switch could handle a much higher volume of calls (initially 350,000 per hour) with greater flexibility and speed than the electromechanical switch it replaced.
hey was the book that your dad "lent" you written in english or chinese?
Thanks for your input in the thread Latarian Roguetonhey was the book that your dad "lent" you written in english or chinese?
Getting past those first switches used in the 70's for the analog signals and going to PCM 30, when the DACS frames were made, this is the technology that the internet was built upon. AT&T financed this work, and it continued to fiber optic bandwidths.
Please...
How did the government subsidize the internet?
yeah sup bro, you know it is me cos im the only person here to ever ID you. you're a and you just admitted it tbh, and its evidential that you hate this country as most other s do
Perh. a variant of:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=latarian
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-05-2011 at 05:21 AM.
The US research/university system, DoD, and the government agencies themselves all say o.
No one is saying that various communications and computer firms did not play a key role but you are being pretty obtuse to try and credit 'the internet' to analog switches that you worked on 30 years ago.
I was working with digital switches 30 years ago. PCM, PAM, RZ, NRZ, stuffing and destuffing bits, etc. Communications was not developed by the government, but the need for us humans to talk to one another, and it wasn't done with tax payer dollars. The military necessities only created a market for private corporations to sell to. Why do you lib s believe research and development needs government help? If there is a market for it, developers will create it. I guess you are a believer of supply side technology.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was established in 1958 to prevent strategic surprise from negatively impacting U.S. national security and create strategic surprise for U.S. adversaries by maintaining the technological superiority of the U.S. military.
To fulfill its mission, the Agency relies on diverse performers to apply multi-disciplinary approaches to both advance knowledge through basic research and create innovative technologies that address current practical problems through applied research. DARPA’s scientific investigations span the gamut from laboratory efforts to the creation of full-scale technology demonstrations in the fields of biology, medicine, computer science, chemistry, physics, engineering, mathematics, material sciences, social sciences, neurosciences and more. As the DoD’s primary innovation engine, DARPA undertakes projects that are finite in duration but that create lasting revolutionary change.
MIT and UCLA were key. Various transfer protocols were developed by various firms including Bell Labs but TCP/IP/FTP were all not.
Your dumbing down again.
So?
That does not disagree with the points I'm making. I am simply saying that if there is a market for these energy harvesters in the free market, that the free market will finance the development. This is not something that should be tax payer subsidized. Then I was also saying that The internet is a spinoff of military applications, but was not designed and paid for by the government to be the internet.
Again, I am against subsidies. At least what little government money went to the research, was because there was military necessity. Not because some politician was trying to buy your vote with tax payers hard earned money.
DARPA is a private firm? MIT and UCLA? Or do they get grants and/or are fully funded by various government agencies.
You really are a clueless little wad aren't you?
My God man. You are a ridiculous joke. You keep sidetracking my point. Spending tax payer dollars on bonafide military needs is different that subsidizing non military applications just for feel good ideas.
Are you purposely missing my point, or are you really that stupid?
You said that the government did not develop communications as if its this all or nothing. Ive quoted you. No one reading this is going to think youre right dumb . There is a reason why people make fun of you all the time for being stupid. it doesn't come from nowhere.
Yopu cannot blame me for your assumptions, especially when i have said other things that prove I wasn't taking an all or nothing stance. That;s your weakness and stupidity. Think about my other threads. I often point out things are complex and there is seldom a single variable.
Why do you intentionally fond ways to misrepresent my words? Are you that obsessed with me?
Uhmm... I'm talking about ARPANet. ARPANet is the granddaddy of the internet.
Last edited by LnGrrrR; 11-05-2011 at 06:11 AM.
You seemingly had an all-or-nothing stance when you talked about government fnance of R&D.
It's the same data switching AT&T was using as well that became the internet. Besides, I was speaking of the internet being a spinoff. Not financed just so politicians can lay claim they brought something new to consumers.
Uhm... no?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpanet
And the original point was that if we didn't fund R&D by the government to create ARPANet, we wouldn't have the internet as a "spinoff" of ARPANet.The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), was the world's first operational packet switching network and the core network of a set that came to compose the global Internet.
Bull . You cannot apply specific cir stances to apply to all.
What timeframe and instance are you talking about? This thread, or a past thread and issue?
WC, what year do you think AT&T created a packet switched network?
Hm... seems like you're completely against government dollars for R&D there. Reread it and tell me what you think it sounds like.
I am against it when it isn't necessary. The free market can develop this without tax dollars. It isn't anything of national importance, so there is no need to artificially speeds up development of possible advances.
Really now. Do you want the government to have it's tendrils in every aspect of our financial lives?
What is and isn't it necessary? For instance, was ARPANet necessary?
I don't know, but I'm going to guess about 1980. 1982 at the latest, and possibly around 1972.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
