WSJ claims gov't didn't invent internet, the author they cite claims otherwise

[CottonRabbit]

A rational take on the internet issue.

In 1969, Arpanet linked 4 computers. Over the next three years, Email and instant messaging were invented, but they weren't useful to you, because the government's Arpanet linked only 37 computers.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012/07/24/did-government-invent-internet#

The closest thing to a PC in 1969 cost a fortune, was completely useless, and not one was sold. I'm sure a private company would have loved to throw away money and develop a way to connect all the non-existent PC users out there.

The Honeywell Kitchen Computer or H316 pedestal model of 1969 was a short-lived product offered by Neiman Marcus as one of a continuing series of extravagant gift ideas.[6] It sold for $10,000, weighed over 100 pounds, and was advertised as useful for storing recipes. Reading or entering these recipes would have been very difficult for the average cook, since the user interface required the person to take a two-week course to learn to program the device, using only toggle-switch input and binary light output. It had a built in cutting board and had a few recipes built in. No evidence has been found that any Honeywell Kitchen Computers were ever sold.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

You guys are really unbelievable. Does everything have to be a democrat/republican liberal/conservative thing?

The foundation of the internet was the result of government research activity and government sponsored activity. That could have been the end of it, but the private sector was able to realize the potential of the technology and made it what it is today. Clearly, neither would have happened without the other. The internet as we know it today is the result of a combination of a lot of things. Beyond that, why does it really matter?

If only it were so Double.

In the context of the current Right Wing economic and social policy, it is in fact very important to highlight the positive effects the common good have had on our private markets.

 

[rchiu]

If only it were so Double.

In the context of the current Right Wing economic and social policy, it is in fact very important to highlight the positive effects the common good have had on our private markets.

It still doesn't change the fact that common goods are given to everyone. Internet is given to everyone. Education is given to everyone. Roads and electricity are given to everyone.

But entrepreneurs took additional initiative, the risk, make the investment in time, resource and money to become successful. It is bullshit when liberal and Obama is trying to take credit for the success of private market based on some function government is SUPPOSED to provide.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

You sir, just moved the goal post.

And that is definately BS on a higher scale.

 

[JKing106]

These are not the 'internet'. I wouldn't even call ethernet 'the internet', it's layer 2 of the OSI model:

Conservatives need to shut the hell up, everytime they open their mouths about technology, we get retarded shit like 'series of tubes' type comments.

The internet would have NEVER happened without government force, because of property rights. If i don't want wires going through my property or i ask for too much money for the ISP to get the right to do so, my neighbors won't get internet service.

If you've ever noticed, countries that have MORE government getting involved in their internet tend to have BETTER/FASTER internet than those that DON'T. That's because internet connections are somewhat of a natural monopoly.

Also, LOL @ calling anything john stossel writes 'balanced'. He is a libertarian propagandist.

I really enjoyed watching that wrestler slapping the shit out of him back in the day. Google it.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

This thread really points out the problem with this country. Obviously, the internet was developed, with many innovations coming together to create what we know it to be today, by a group of people who worked mostly together and sometimes alone to build the bridge that now carries information worldwide for all of us. You see, the point here is it took a community (in this case a community of tech geeks 😛) to create the most wonderful invention of the late 20th century. They did not care about right or left, up or down, just what they could do to make things better.

The construction of the internet should serve as an example to all of us that we need to work together to get things done and not be selfish and pretend we did everything by ourselves....*cough Al Gore cough* *cough cough private business cough cough* ***cough etc cough***

 

[DaveSimmons]

Al Gore never claimed to have "invented the internet", that was another Republican big lie that was repeated often enough that people believed it.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

He did claim to have helped _create_ it as a Senator, which is probably an overstatement. But for those here giving the private sector credit for making the internet successful:
"he sponsored the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network) and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to commercial traffic)."

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

You guys are really unbelievable. Does everything have to be a democrat/republican liberal/conservative thing?

The foundation of the internet was the result of government research activity and government sponsored activity. That could have been the end of it, but the private sector was able to realize the potential of the technology and made it what it is today. Clearly, neither would have happened without the other. The internet as we know it today is the result of a combination of a lot of things. Beyond that, why does it really matter?

It matters because recognizing government can be a positive is a threat to the Republican platform that it can't. And congratulations on taking the democrat/liberal side of the argument with the bolded. I realize that likely wasn't your intention, but that's what happens when one side politicizes logic and reality as left-wing bias.

 

[Double Trouble]

It matters because recognizing government can be a positive is a threat to the Republican platform that it can't.

Any rational person realizes government is needed and can be a positive. Projecting your delusional views onto republicans is rather pointless.

And congratulations on taking the democrat/liberal side of the argument with the bolded. I realize that likely wasn't your intention, but that's what happens when one side politicizes logic and reality as left-wing bias.

/facepalm

I form my own opinions, I don't care what side something is on. People like you who view the world through a prism of political sides are the problem with this country.

 

[Exterous]

You guys are really unbelievable. Does everything have to be a democrat/republican liberal/conservative thing?

The foundation of the internet was the result of government research activity and government sponsored activity. That could have been the end of it, but the private sector was able to realize the potential of the technology and made it what it is today. Clearly, neither would have happened without the other. The internet as we know it today is the result of a combination of a lot of things. Beyond that, why does it really matter?

I agree. The internet seems to be a great example of what happens when the government and private sector work in conjunction with eachother

In the context of the current Right Wing economic and social policy, it is in fact very important to highlight the positive effects the common good have had on our private markets.

It matters because recognizing government can be a positive is a threat to the Republican platform that it can't. And congratulations on taking the democrat/liberal side of the argument with the bolded. I realize that likely wasn't your intention, but that's what happens when one side politicizes logic and reality as left-wing bias.

But of course the first two people that respond immediately use your post to turn it back into a republican/democrat conservative/liberal debate

 

[Double Trouble]

But of course the first two people that respond immediately use your post to turn it back into a republican/democrat conservative/liberal debate

Their kind of mentality seems to have permeated into congress, and now we really can't get a damn thing done. 🙁

 

[HomerJS]

In other breaking news NASA is actually a private company owned by a conservative businessman who's company was the first to land on the moon.

 

[Exterous]

In other breaking news NASA is actually a private company owned by a conservative businessman who's company was the first to land on the moon.

Taking out your partisan bickering space exploration might be another good example. The government laid the ground work but after a certain point lacked the will/ability to really expand on it. Enter the private businesses who look to make ventures into space commercially viable.

I wonder if part of this is semantics? Democrats see 'invent the internet' as 'create the internet infrastructure and basic building blocks of the internet' which I would agree as true. Republicans see 'invent the internet' as 'the internet is a vast structure encompassing multitudes of private industry effort, innovation and financing which made it what it is today' which I would agree is also true. For either one to claim total creative rights over the internet is disingenuous at best

 

[Double Trouble]

In other breaking news NASA is actually a private company owned by a conservative businessman who's company was the first to land on the moon.

NASA is another good example of how the collaboration between private, public, hybrid (education institutions etc) can yield great results. No one sector by itself could achieve the desired results.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

But of course the first two people that respond immediately use your post to turn it back into a republican/democrat conservative/liberal debate

I'm not the one that has framed that opinion as a partisan/inaccurate one. Maybe you need to take another look at the OP and the linked articles.

This is the same framing at work that has turned wanting to raise revenue and reduce spending into some kind of far left liberal agenda instead of the centrist middle-ground that it is.

 

[soulcougher73]

Who cares who invented the internet. It really is a moot point for billions of people.

 

[Double Trouble]

Who cares who invented the internet. It really is a moot point for billions of people.

It's a moot point except to those who want to support some ideological extreme position that either the government can't do anything good, or that more government taxes/spending is justified because of past accomplishments. Either way, it's stupid.

 

[Atreus21]

For me it's just a question of who made TCP/IP. If I had to reduce the internet down to it's most fundamental nuts and bolts, it'd be TCP/IP.

 

[Exterous]

I'm not the one that has framed that opinion as a partisan/inaccurate one. Maybe you need to take another look at the OP and the linked articles.

Why would that matter since that comment was not talking about the OP or articles in anyway? I noted that your comment:

It matters because recognizing government can be a positive is a threat to the Republican platform that it can't. And congratulations on taking the democrat/liberal side of the argument with the bolded

immediately turned Double Trouble's comment back into a republican/democrat conservative/liberal debate

If you would like further analysis: your statement claiming the Republican platform is that government can't be a positive is partisan retardation since you decided to go with an absolute statement. I would challenge you to find an official Republican party platform that they claim that no part of the government is positive - that we would be better off with no government at all. I think you'll find it hard to find one as it would make all Republicans jobless and out of power

Now - Republicans may be against certain government practices and say that specific government involvements can not be a positive but that is not at all close to your statement

Also - adding a 'congratulations' means that you celebrated 'your side' winning - you were happy/pleased not necessarily that someone arrived at the a conclusion but that someone arrived at your sides stance. I think if we removed the references to the lines in the sand drawn sides it would help remove the vitriol from discourse.

 

[glenn1]

In other breaking news NASA is actually a private company owned by a conservative businessman who's company was the first to land on the moon.

Let's do a quick summary of this thread:

Conservative: I support block grants for Medicare, maintaining the Bush tax cuts, and work requirements for welfare benefits.

Liberal: OMG, but government built the internet and you're using it! And why do you hate NASA?

Quick summary of other threads:

Obama and liberals: We want to build more roads since infrastructure is good for the economy.

Conservatives: OMG, get your hands off my wallet you communists! And why do you hate small businesses?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Why would that matter since my comment was not talking about the OP or articles in anyway? I noted that your comment:



immediately turned Double Trouble's comment back into a republican/democrat conservative/liberal debate

I'm not the one who has turned his opinion into a partisan one, I merely pointed out others have.

 

[Atreus21]

Just to keep the partisanship going:

 

[Matt1970]

NASA is another good example of how the collaboration between private, public, hybrid (education institutions etc) can yield great results. No one sector by itself could achieve the desired results.

NASA did great things but right now NASA has to rent rides into space from the Russians.

 

[Exterous]

It's a moot point except to those who want to support some ideological extreme position that either the government can't do anything good, or that more government taxes/spending is justified because of past accomplishments.

Which, sadly, appears to be a great number of people

 

[Exterous]

I'm not the one who has turned his opinion into a partisan one

And I never said you did. Or is this the 'But he started it' defense?

I merely pointed out others have.

Which would have been fine on its own - had you left out your own partisan bullshit

NASA did great things but right now NASA has to rent rides into space from the Russians.

And...?