It only supports my contention that our internet is the natural evolution of our communications network.
Not really. BD isn't very clear... in the first comment he seems to support your idea, in the second, he says that TDM was wanted due to people wanting networks (meaning TDM came after networks ie ARPANet).
And saying that the internet was a "natural evolution" is somewhat surprising... if it was so natural, why didn't a private enterprise come up with it first? It's akin to saying, "The wheel is a precurser to the boat, because after people traveled on land they decided to travel on water."
LOL...
Do I need to find some tube multiplexers using TDM?
I don't know if they exist, but tube FDM multiplexers do.
WC, if you think that TDM lead to networking inexorably, then why didn't any private citizens see that opportunity first?
My bet is that material/chemical breakthrough with nanotech will provide huge increases in joules/volume for batteries, and sunlight used to convert CO2 and H2O directly into oxygen and hydrogen for fuel cells.
If we'd stopping pouring $Ts into ty oil countries and military gargbage but rather into deep research, we could fix a lot of problems instead of allowing UCA to keep sucking us dry by exploiting those problems, redistributing wealth to themselves.
What do you mean?
There was plenty of corporate investment. Are you saying that the government was the only investor?
I tried finding a history on TDM. TMI on the internet. I did find TDM was first used in 1870, but not how we think of it today.
smh. Muxes were a tool used in the design but the mux does not have a natural evolution pattern. All ALU's use muxes so you might as well claim that all of the modern computer industry's innovations are beholden to whoever you think designed the mux. BTW that wasn't Bell Labs.
Combinational logic is so far beyond the simplicity of a conglomeration of ANDs and an OR
I mean, why didn't civilians do it on their own, without government help? If the advance of networking was obvious after the creation of TDM, why didn't any civilians get together and build a proprietary internet?
I don't know, but if there is a working design, why not use it?
You miss my point. If it was an obvious transition from TDM to packet-based networks, why didn't a civilian company jump on it before the government? And if government work is usually more inefficient, even if they started at the same time, the civilian company should've been able to put out a better/faster product, correct?
Can't say for sure, but it seems the government may have had use for it before the public wanted it.
Maybe because of its size, the government can look more at long-term projects that might not immediately have a payout. Would you say that's fair?
Absolutely.
Maybe the internet would have taken longer to develop, but in the early 90's, it was nothing to get excited over anyway. Only since the late 90's were we really able to get good use out of it. We really need the speed of out computers to make it work, and I would say it wasn't till we broke 500 mhz that it became useful. At least for me. Not so much for the home commuter speed as much as the server speeds also available.
I remember playing searching on the internet with my 25 mhz 68040 Amiga A4000 that I bought in October 1992. The internet existed before that, but I didn't bother until I installed I-Browse. So few sites, so little information.
Ok, so I think you're finally getting to my point. The government can invest in these long-term projects, that don't have an obvious payoff, because they are the government. In many cases, there may not come a payoff. But in some cases, like ARPANet, the payoff was incredibly great.
So, we can agree that in some cases, the government is better suited to fund research into an area of study that commerical/private companies wouldn't, correct?
You are sidestepping my point. This is a spinofff that was not intended. I'm talking about intentional research and funding for projects the free market can accommodate.
The spinoff is the point. The government is the only one with the means to research such a big project without any form of immediate payout.
And it's a big disingenuous to argue that the internet was an unintended spinoff. I don't see how you can say that TDM was an obvious precursor to the network, but ARPANet wasn't an obvious precursor to the internet.
Now, the people who came up with it had no idea how ubiquitous the internet would become, but you seem to imply that there was no point/benefit to packet-based networks in the first place.
The potential of networking wasn't realized until decades later... most companies don't have the capability to look that long-term. When it comes to "green" technologies, the government can afford to step in, because there's a possibility of unexpected advantages producred years later.
But the internet was not the intended development financed.
I would have been completely against this if the government set out to create the internet back the.
It's called a spinoff for a reason.
As for government research f8unds... Yes, it they were the only ones whop could handle it, and it was something we needed. Not desired, but needed.
Do we need the internet? We did just fine before it.
Technology keeps advancing. If ARPNet didn't exist, I think you can bet something similar would have been developed.
I never said no such think. I said packet switching was a natural evolution. This would have happened at some point with or without the military.
Can afford to step in?
No ing way. We are in a spiraling debt as it is.
So it would have taken longer for initial development of the internet. So what. I don't More money will naturally be put into green technology as a profit in the future can be seen on the horizon.
Are you someone who cannot live without the internet? I lived without it most my life. It's no big deal.
Back to spending tax dollars on green technology.
What if we spend all this money, make people use it saying it will be revenue neutral in 5 years, and it never is. What if we put ourselves in a position that it becomes another black hole of spending.
Keep in mind. The government is seldom the solution, and almost always the problem.
It grew organically off the back of networking, but yes, it wasn't the "intended" development. I would argue that the intended development, a packet-switching network, is important enough to justify the spending in the first place.
Why would you be against the government creating an internet, but for them creating a network?
That's how R&D works though WC. If you got what you wanted everytime, there'd be no need for RESEARCH and DEVELOPMENT.
Ha! That's like saying we don't need cars, because people were fine with horses and buggies. When the base network drops here, 95% of people can't do their work.
But ARPANet WAS first... and America created it. As such, America was one of the first to benefit from said knowledge. It's one reason why we've got a relatively robust cyber architecture.
Packet switching from TDM is no more a "natural evolution" than the internet is from networking.
Let's throw some more hypotheticals in here:
So China came up with the world's best fighter plane, so what? Somebody would've eventually.
So England came up with a radically more effective way to treat cancer? So what, somebody would've eventually.
Etc etc. My point is, by doing the research ourselves, we gain access to said information earlier. What if we didn't bother to research, say, nuclear technology?
You absolutely have no idea how important networks (not necessarily the internet, but networks) are to modern day companies.
Didn't you say that America needed to keep manufacturing jobs?
You're missing the long term picture. Look at the bankers with the bailout. Now, would've it have made more sense long-term to be responisble and do what was best for the company by not taking risky ventures.
But almost all the parties involved did what could make them money for the short-term. Why do you think that is?
Sometimes R&D doesn't work out. That's the point.
Yet, sometimes the government can provide a solution.
You disappoint me. What are you, a socialist? Maybe a communist?
Who gives a who disappoints you? You wouldn't know a true socialist if they bit you in your ass. Its not black and white, socialist or not, you pigeonholing dimwit.
ARPA developed a protocol intentionally as they were directed to which was direct government funding. The universities and research foundations were funded by DoD, NSI and the publically owned schools and their endowments. In 1992 when you did not think that there was much going on in the IP world, those organizations had vast domains up sharing info across the country. They just did not give random dimwits like yourself access to that data.
They started farming out IP addresses to people who gave public access and voila you got in.
If anything what this shows is that government and private businesses working together can come up with highly successful projects as both the private and public sectors contributed into what we have today.
-------
------
You agreed with my earlier premise. Do you or do you not think that the government's research into networks was valid?
WC, do you think R&D always comes up with exactly what they were looking for?
Absolutely not. Generally more things are created or invented than intended.
Again, it is not the government responsibility to provide for us. If that's what you believe, then move to some other country. Maybe get out of the military and pay the proper taxes for your income and benefits should you be able to find a job that provides as well as you have now for a standard of living. You probably pay so little in taxes. With your housing, separate rations, and COLA if you get it... Only you base pay being taxable... What did you say you are? E-6 and married? If you made the same comparable living and paid taxes on all your income, you would like pay $20k a year in taxes or more. Maybe then you would be more concerned about government feel good programs that unnecessarily spend tax dollars.
Base pay for my years and rank is more than double now, from what it was in 1992 when I got out. $1420 to $2947. Back then, I figured I had to have a job that paid over $18 per hr. to have the same net income after taxes when you add the pay I received added to my base pay that was not taxable.
How much per hour would you have to make to break even on net income after taxes if you left the military? How much would you end up paying in taxes? Would you then care every time they wanted to change the tax code? How would eliminating the "Bush tax Cuts" affect you?
Most people just don't realize how good people in the military have it. What's sad is most in the military don't even realize it, till they get out.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 11-10-2011 at 03:15 AM.
Who said anything about the government providing for us? I think that government interest in long-term projects that may not have short-term value can be a good idea.
And I realize the benefits of the military, that's one of the reasons I've stayed in. Did you stay in the full 20?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote